'-  -^l^.^'-^^^ 


•■-■•;>i. 


^  PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


SM/. 


Division  ....l..\J...  )?,.VfJr:rT 

Section    ..» /...I..X.V. 

Number 


.  23..  /fS-Z 


AEYO -SEMITIC    SPEECH: 


A   STUDY 


LINGUISTIC    ARCHAEOLOGY. 


BY 


JAMES  FREDERICK  M^CURDY. 


Jtnhouar : 
WARREN    F.   DRAPER. 

LONDON  :   TRUBNER  AND   CO. 
1881. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1881,  by 

WARREN  r.  DRAPER, 
In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


TO   MY   REVERED   INSTRUCTOR  AND  FRIEND, 
PROFESSOR  WILLIAM   HENRY  GREEN. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/aryosemiticspeecOOmccu 


PREFACE. 


The  following  work  is  substantially  a  reprint  of  articles 
contributed  to  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  the  last  of  them  having 
appeared  in  January  of  the  present  year.  liiasmuch  as  the 
ground  taken  up  by  it  has  been  regarded  by  many  influential 
scientists  as  properly  closed  to  the  practical  worker,  and  an 
attempt  to  compare  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  systems  of  lan- 
guage is  often  spoken  of  as  mere  dilettanteism,  it  seems 
necessary  to  say  a  few  words  by  way  of  apology. 

The  investigation  whose  results  are  here  presented  has 
been  carried  on  under  the  conviction  that  the  field  should 
not  be  abandoned  until  inquiry  should  be  proved  to  be  a 
search  for  the  undiscoverable,  or,  in  other  words,  until  true 
scientific  methods  should  be  proved  to  be  unavailing.  Ji  it 
appears  that  hitherto  the  full  resources  of  science  have  not 
been  called  out,  investigation  would  seem  to  be  not  only 
legitimate  but  necessary.  The  following  considerations  may 
be  adduced  as  having  controlled  the  purpose  of  the  work : 

(1)  It  is  possible  to  compare  the  forms  of  the  two  systems 
better  than  has  been  done  hitherto.  Proto-Aryan  forms, 
which  are  used  on  the  one  side  of  the  equations,  have  been 
brought  out  of  late  years  with  ever-increasing  definiteness 
and  accuracy.  A  dictionary  of  Proto-Aryan  roots,  generally 
reliable  for  comparative  purposes,  not  only  may  be,  but  has 
been,  constructed,  and  the  processes  which  are  involved  in 
its  grand  results  are  to  be  commended  to  the  study  of  every 
trained  and  cautious  etymologist.  What  the  principles  are 
which  should  lead  to  equally  valid  results  in  the  search  for 
Proto-Semitic  roots  cannot  long  be  a  matter  of  doubt ;  and 
a  sound  and  sure  Semitic  morphology  is  certainly  within 
reach.     In  Chapter  lY.  I  have  presented  an  outline  of  the 

(V) 


VI  PREFACE. 

morphology  of  both  Aryan  and  Semitic  roots,  drawn  up  with- 
out reference  to  any  harmonizing  of  the  two  systems,  either 
in  their  principles  of  structure  or  in  individual  forms.  Criti- 
cism from  competent  judges  upon  these  attempts  is  earnestly 
desired,  especially  upon  the  Semitic  investigation  which  nec- 
essarily contains  much  more  that  is  new  than  appears  in  the 
discussion  of  Aryan  roots. 

(2)  In  regard  to  the  other  element  of  language  with  which 
etymology  is  necessarily  concerned,  namely  the  meanings  of 
the  roots,  I  am  of  the  firm  conviction  that  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  a  science  of  meanings.  Speaking  more  definitely, 
there  is  a  possibility  of  showing  a  development,  according  to 
certain  general  laws,  in  the  train  of  ideas  represented  by  any 
given  word  whose  history  may  be  accurately  traced.  This 
is  the  same  as  saying  that  the  comparative  usage  of  words 
is  not  a  matter  of  utter  uncertainty.  Schleicher  is  the  only 
glottologist  of  eminence  who  has  maintained  the  contrary 
opinion ;  and  he  was  almost  forced  to  hold  it  in  consequence 
of  his  doctrine  of  the  purely  physical  nature  of  language, 
which  necessarily  makes  phonology  and  morphology  the 
main  departments  of  comparative  philology.  But  it  is  hard 
to  see  how  etymology  can  be  more  than  a  plaything  if,  in 
tracing  the  history  of  words,  we  are  not  guided  by  observed 
analogies  of  usage  in  the  case  of  kindred  ideas  ;  and  this  im- 
plies the  possibility  of  discovering  empirical  laws.  The 
principles  which  I  believe  to  have  prevailed  in  the  develoi> 
ment  of  meanings  are  these :  First,  the  stock  of  ideas  in  the 
possession  of  primitive  men  was  small.  Second,  these  ideas 
were  of  the  most  simple  and  primitive  kind.  Third,  the  main 
part  of  every  language  was  built  up  from  a  small  number  of 
roots,  the  rest  (whether  few  or  many)  having  perished  in 
the  struggle  for  existence.  Fourth,  with  the  growth  of  civili- 
zation came  the  development  of  thought ;  but  thought  and 
language  go  hand  in  hand,  and  with  new  objects  and  ideas 
there  came  a  development  of  meanings  in  words  as  well  as 
the  formation  of  new  vocables.  Fifth,  this  growing  potency 
and  versatility  of  language  naturally  followed  the  line  of  ad- 
vancing civilization ;  if  the  same  word,  for  example,  means 


PREFACE.  Vii 

to  cut  and  to  plough,  the  former  meaning  is  the  earlier. 
Sixth,  most  roots  express  general  notions,  but  such  concep- 
tions at  first  related  only  to  the  world  of  sense  and  physical 
action  ;  the  metaphysical  is  always  later  than  the  physical 
meaning  of  any  word.  These  principles  relating  to  early 
language  are  very  general  in  their  application,  and  ought  to 
be  universally  admitted.  If  their  validity  is  granted,  the  true 
method  of  procedure  in  such  an  investigation  as  ours  be- 
comes evident.  From  the  current  roots  in  the  two  systems 
of  speech  we  must  select  for  comparison  only  those  which 
expressed  primarily  the  same  simple  notions.  We  have  al- 
ready seen  that  it  is  possible  to  reduce  such  roots  to  their 
Proto-Aryan  and  Proto-Semitic  forms.  If  they  agree  both  in 
their  primary  meanings  and  in  their  forms,  the  two  conditions 
of  sound  etymology  are  satisfied.  It  should  also  be  noted 
that  in  tracing  the  history  of  meanings  in  the  case  of  any 
given  root  great  help  may  be  obtained  from  etymological 
analogies  observed  elsewhere  ;  and  such  illustration  has  been 
souglit  as  much  as  possible  in  the  present  work.    . 

Two  or  three  remarks  may  be  made  with  reference  to 
general  objections  urged  against  the  admissibility  of  com- 
paring linguistic  systems  whose  structural  principles  differ. 
I  confess  that  the  only  objection  which  seems  worthy  of  the 
consideration  of  a  linguistic  philosopher  is  that  based  upon 
the  assumption  that  language  must  have  begun  with  sen- 
tences and  not  with  single  words,  and  that  therefore  the 
typical  sentence  form  of  each  family  must  have  distinguished 
it  from  all  others  from  its  earliest  days.  I  even  believe,  with 
Steinthal,  that  human  language,  in  its  strict  sense,  only  be- 
gan with  the  use  of  the  sentence,  or  the  employment  of  a  sub- 
ject and  predicate ;  but  I  also  hold,  with  the  same  master, 
that  the  sentence  form  was  not  necessarily  permanent.  Nor 
did  both  of  its  parts  necessarily  consist  of  full-grown  words. 
The  theory  that  men  first  spoke  in  roots  and  the  theory  that 
they  first  spoke  in  sentences  are  both  wrong  or  both  right, 
according  as  they  are  understood  by  their  advocates.  This 
remark  is  made  as  preliminary  to  the  discussion  on  p.  50  ff. 

Objections  from  the  side  of  ethnology  or  anthropology  are 


Vlil  PREFACE. 

not  entitled  to  much  consideration,  Tlie  fact  is,  that  the 
main  evidence  for  a  distinction  of  Aryan  and  Semitic  races 
is  drawn  from  linguistic  considerations.  But  that  evidence 
is  worthless  because  language  does  not  necessarily  differen- 
tiate races.  There  is,  indeed,  little  evidence  on  either  side 
from  ethnology,  and  none  at  all  from  anthropology.  If  it 
should  even  appear  certain  that  the  Semites  came  from 
Northern  Arabia  and  the  Aryans  from  Central  Asia,  that 
would  prove  nothing  except  that  reports  have  not  reached 
us  from  any  earlier  habitat. 

Attention  should  be  called  to  the  tentative  character  of 
the  first  division  of  Chapter  III.  The  observations  there 
made  on  pre-historic  sounds  are  not  offered  in  the  way  of 
complete  scientific  induction.  They  are  only  intended  to 
show  the  possibility  that  the  phonetic  systems  of  the  two 
families  were  originally  the  same.  That  branch  of  the  dis- 
cussion is  not  of  such  positive  value  as  is  claimed  for  the  rest 
of  the  work.  I  should  like  to  offer  something  better  on  the 
more  obscure  questions  of  comparative  Semitic  phonology ; 
but  the  results  of  late  researches  in  Germany  do  not  seem  to 
me  to  be  more  conclusive,  and  my  own  observations,  written 
two  years  ago,  are  allowed  to  remain  in  the  meanwhile.  No 
question  of  form  or  meaning  discussed  in  the  book  is  affected 
by  their  correctness  or  falsity. 

Finally  it  should  be  said  that  the  facts  brought  out  in  this 
work  are  presented  for  the  candid  judgment  of  linguistic 
students  rather  than  the  conclusions  arrived  at.  If  it  is 
proved  that  the  Aryan  and  the  Semite  used  the  same  sounds 
to  express  most  of  their  essential  primitive  ideas  the  facts 
which  make  this  certain  become  the  permanent  possession 
of  science.  How  the  linguistic  philosopher  as  a  psychologist 
or  physiologist  may  account  for  the  facts  is,  in  the  meantime, 
a  matter  of  minor  consideration. 

J.  F.  McCURDY. 
PRiJrcETON,  N.  J.,  April  21,  1881. 


TABLE   OF   CONTEl^TS. 


PAOB 

Chap.  I.  —  Past  and  Present  Treatment  of  the  Subject,  .  .  1-22 
Two  main  tests  of  linguistic  relationship,  1.  —  The  grammatical  test 
surer  than  the  etymological;  prejudice  against  the  latter,  2.  —  General 
principles  to  be  borne  in  mind  :  all  comparative  linguistic  reasoning  is  only 
of  the  probable  kind ;  facts  of  science  alone,  and  not  current  philosophizing, 
to  be  deferred  to,  3-5.  —  Statement  of  the  true  method  of  procedure,  5. 

History  of  opinion  divided  into  two  periods  by  the  rise  of  comparative 
philology  as  a  science,  5.  —  The  pre-scientific  tendency :  Hebrew  looked 
upon  as  the  parent  and  primitive  type  of  languages  ;  occasion  and  value  of 
this  theory,  6,  7.  —  Examples  of  etymologizing  which  illustrated  it,  8,  9  — 
The  scientific  era :  two  opposite  and  wrong  tendencies  since  its  inaugura- 
tion, 10. — Instances  of  hasty  generalizing:  Adelung ;  Humboldt;  Bopp, 
11.  —  Kindred  theory  of  affinity  between  Aryan,  Semitic,  and  North-African 
families:  Lepsius,  Benfey,  Bunsen,  Schwartze,  11,  12.  —  Cautious  views 
and  tentative  comparisons  of  Gesenius,  12,  13.  —  Untenable  system  of 
POrst  and  Franz  Delitzsch,  13-15.  — Theories  of  Ewald,  15,  16.  —  "  Wur- 
zelworterbuch  "  of  Ernst  Meier,  16. —  Speculations  of  von  Raumer  and  of 
Ascoli,  16-18.  —  Important  essay  of  Priedrich  Delitzsch  criticised,  18-21.  — 
Theory  of  J.  Grill,  21. —  Discordant  views  of  other  linguistic  authorities,  22. 

Chap.  II.  —  Criteria  of  Relationship, 23-52 

Elements  of  language  to  be  considered  in  comparing  linguistic  families, 
23.  —  General  remarks  on  the  divergence  in  sounds,  structural  principles, 
and  vocables  between  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  systems,  23-25.  —  Scheme  of 
the  treatment  of  the  whole  subject  of  the  work,  25.  —  Comparison  of 
sounds  ;  phonology  not  a  primary  criterion  of  relationship ;  true  aim  and 
methods  of  phonological  investigations,  26-28.  —  Comparison  of  structural 
peculiarities:  conditions  of  the  inquiry,  28,  29.  —  Attempt  of  Ewald  to 
reconcile  the  divergencies  in  the  placing  of  inflective  elements,  in  the  con- 
stitution of  roots,  in  syntactical  characteristics,  29-33.  —  Purther  remarks 
on  the  same  subject ;  occasions  of  the  diversity  of  the  Aryan  and  Semitic 
sentence,  33,  34.  —  Meagre  and  unsatisfactory  result  of  all  these  inquiries, 
34-36. 

Preliminaries  to  the  comparison  of  single  words :  objection  on  general 
grounds  to  the  admissibility  of  such  processes  ;  the  objection  not  in  the 
true  spirit  of  science,  36-38.  —  Contention  that  the  present  types  of  speech 

ix 


.^y 


P  K  i  1<  0  K  TOx 
J^EG.  AUG  1882 


I 


EELATIOl^S 


ARYAN   AND   SEMITIC   LANGUAGES. 


CHAPTER    I. 


PAST  AND  PRESENT  TREATMENT  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

The  subject-matter  of  the  Science  of  Language  has  been 
rescued  from  the  confusion  and  uncertainty  which  marked 
its  superstitious  and  mythical  treatment  in  pre-scientific  times. 
The  general  methods  and  principles  of  its  right  comparative 
study  are  well  ascertained  and  universally  acknowledged.  In 
accordance  with  these  principles  and  methods  certain  families 
or  classes  of  speech  have  been  clearly  established ;  and  the  work 
of  classifying  the  various  dialects  of  the  world  is  steadily  ad- 
vancing with  the  progress  of  exact  knowledge  and  critical 
investigation.  There  are  two  main  tests  whereby  the  rela^' 
tionship  of  languages,  or  families  of  languages,  may  be  dis-; 
covered  or  confirmed  :  the  comparison  of  structural  features^ 
and  the  comparison  of  roots.  The  former  criterion  finds  its 
application  in  the  attempt  to  show  that  the  languages  in 
question  have  in  common  their  leading  types  or  modes  of 
expression  as  these  are  revealed  in  their  flectional  and  syn- 
tactical characteristics ;  its  principles  are  those  of  Comparativt 
Grammar,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term.  The  latter  cri- 
terion is  employed  in  the  endeavor  to  prove  that  the  idioms 
compared  possessed  in  their  primitive  state  the  same  working 


2  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

vocabulary,  by  reducing  their  current  vocables  to  their  rad- 
ical forms  and  primary  meanings  ;  its  principles  are  therefore 
those  of  Comparative  Etymology.  Both  of  these  methods  are 
legitimate  in  their  respective  spheres,  for  they  aim,  with  equal 
deference  to  established  laws,  to  reach  fundamental  forms  of 
expression  as  a  basis  of  comparison.  The  grammatical  test 
is  naturally  surer  than  the  etymological ;  since  forms  of 
thought  as  expressed  in  the  categories  of  grammar  are  more 
directly  and  palpably  indicative  of  a  common  mental  history 
among  the  speakers  of  language.  This  is  so  mainly  for  two 
reasons  :  First,  grammatical  features  are  found  by  experience 
to  be  more  permanent  and  less  easily  transferred  than  verbal 
expressions  ;  and  this  distinction  we  are  bound  to  regard  as 
valid  for  the  pre-historic  as  well  as  the  accessible  forms  of  any 
groups  of  languages  which  may  come  up  for  comparison,  so 
that  it  must  hold  equally  good  for  the  hypothetical  proto- 
grammatical  and  proto-radical  periods  of  them  all.  Second, 
the  conditions  of  the  rise  and  vicissitudes  of  grammatical 
features  are  better  understood  than  the  conditions  of  the  pro- 
duction and  early  fortunes  of  roots.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  a 
great  deal  that  is  obscure  in  the  former  sphere ;  but  in  the 
latter  nearly  everything,  as  we  shall  see  later,  is  a  matter  of 
dispute.  For  these  reasons,  and  because  such  rapid  and  tri- 
umphant progress  has  been  made  in  the  province  of  compara- 
tive grammar  as  a  test  of  linguistic  relationship,  it  has  lately 
become  widely  the  fashion  to  uphold  the  exclusive  validity 
of  this  criterion,  and  to  declare  that  tlie  resemblance,  or  even 
the  identity  (if  it  could  be  proved),  of  the  stock  of  roots  in 
different  families  of  speech  is  of  itself  no  proof  of  real  affinity. 
Of  course,  it  is  admitted  that  where  grammatical  analogies 
prevail,  etymological  coincidences  furnish  valuable  confirm- 
atory evidence  of  ultimate  identity,  and  so  far  they  may  be 
regarded  as  accrediting  relationship.  But  investigators  are 
seriously  warned  against  regarding  such  evidence  alone  as 
being  of  any  value  whatever  in  this  department  of  the  science 
of  language.  The  present  essay  is  an  attempt  to  remove  some 
of  the  odium  which  attache?  to  the  tlieory  thus  impugned. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  AYRAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  3 

Before  going  further,  however,  it  will  be  necessary  to  lay 
down  two  principles  upon  which  the  validity  of  all  the  sub- 
sequent reasoning  will  largely  depend.  First  it  must  be 
understood  that  all  comparative  linguistic  reasoning  furnishes 
only  probable  evidence,  not  demonstration  of  the  kind  that  i» 
said  to  be  mathematically  certain.  The  conviction  of  the 
earlier  identity  of  forms  compared  may  rise  to  the  height  of 
moral  certainty,  but  this  can  only  happen  through<the  accumu- 
lation of  probabilities.  Even  in  the  strongest  kind  of  proof, 
namely  that  afforded  by  the  analogies  of  grammatical  forms, 
there  is  a  "  metaphysical  possibility  "  that  accepted  conclusions 
may  be  erroneous  :  and  the  invincibility  of  the  arguments  in 
their  favor  is  only  due  to  the  extreme  unlikelihood  that  early 
speakers,  from  any  chance  or  combination  of  chances,  or 
through  any  occult  operation  of  consentaneous  intellectual 
causes,  should  have  been  led  to  employ  similar  types  of  ex- 
pression for  the  same  forms  of  thought,  without  any  co-opera- 
tion ill  the  production  of  such  linguistic  phenomena.  The 
facts  to  be  considered  in  making  up  the  case  are,  (1)  the 
ultimate  phonetic  identity  of  the  forms  compared,  (2)  together 
with  the  degree  of  resemblance  in  the  ideas  expressed  by 
these  forms,  and  (3)  the  number  of  cases  in  which  such  re- 
semblances are  traceable  in  essential  forms  as  compared  with 
the  extent  of  the  whole  field  of  investigation.  Precisely  the 
same  classes  of  facts  are  to  be  adduced  when  the  roots  of  two 
or  more  families  of  language  come  up  for  comparison.  In 
both  kinds  of  investigation  we  have  to  do  with  the  weighing 
of  probabilities.  The  evidence  may  differ  in  degree  in  favor 
of  the  former  sphere  of  comparison,  but  it  does  not  differ  in 
kind.  The  methods  of  science  are  equally  applicable  to  both 
departments,  in  the  processes  of  selecting,  sifting,  analyzing, 
restoring,  and  re-adjusting.  In  both  provinces  the  final 
comparison  must  be  made  only  with  the  residuum  of  the  last 
analysis,  and  then  the  decision  rests  upon  the  inherent  proba- 
bilities in  each  case. 

The  second  position  to  be  upheld  as  a  necessary  preliminary 
is  that*  in  all  the  processes  of  the  investigation  we  must  have 


4  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

regard  only  to  the  well-established  facts  and  conclusions  of 
science,  and  not  to  any  theories  and  hasty  assumptions  that 
proceed  from  the  philosophizing  that  is  rife  upon  such  subjects. 
The  success  of  the  laborer  will  here  depend  mainly  upon 
the  caution  and  discrimination  which  he  exercises  in  settling 
the  limits  and  the  conditions  of  comparison,  and  the  patience 
and  judgment  which  he  employs  in  tracing  each  current  form 
and  idea  to  be  compared  to  their  fundamental  expression. 
His  business  is  simply  to  ascertain  facts  ;  if  those  facts  are 
established,  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  them  will  meet 
with  acceptance  or  rejection  according  to  what  may  seem  to 
each  critic  to  be  the  antecedent  probabilities  of  the  case.  Then 
only  can  current  theories  as  to  the  necessary  conditions  of 
primitive  speech  be  admitted  into  court,  and  the  testimony 
thus  received  may  pass  for  what  it  is  worth.  It  might  seem 
to  be  unnecessary  to  state  so  formally  what  ought  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  one  of  the  common-places  of  all  science..  But  the\ 
statement  comes  to  be  a  necessity,  when  it  is  found  that  j 
some  of  the  most  influential  writers  on  the  science  of  language  j 
maintain  that  the  field  of  comparison  is  absolutely  limited  tol 
those  families  of  speech  in  which  grammatical  affinity  can  be 
shown  to  exist.  They  assert  that  the  inflectional  and  syntacti- 
cal features  of  any  system  of  languages  necessarily  prevailed 
from  the  very  beginning,  and  that  idioms  outside  of  the  limits 
just  designated  must  have  been  separate  from  the  very  first, 
from  the  very  peculiarities  of  their  structural  type.  They 
maintain  that  all  language  starts  with  the  sentence  and  not 
with  the  word,  and  that  single  terms  are  therefore  not  eligible 
for  comparison.  They  say,  moreover,  that  as  single  sounds 
are  liable  to  constant  change,  phonetic  agreement  among  cur- 
rent roots  would  be  a  sign  rather  of  a  primary  difference  than 
of  identity.  These  and  other  objections  to  the  admissibility  of 
the  comparison  of  roots  alone  as  a  test  of  relationship  will  be 
considered  in  the  next  chapter,  and  will  be  shown  to  be  either 
half-truths  of  science  or  mere  hasty  assumptions  of  a  pre- 
mature linguistic  philosophy.  What  it  concerns  us  now  to 
maintain  is  that  the  field  is  the  whole  world  of  speech,  and 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  5 

that  judgment  is  to  be  passed  not  upon  attempts  to  go  beyond 
restrictions  arbitrarily  laid  down,  but  upon  results  arrived 
at  after  a  sti-ict  application  of  the  methods  of  science  to  the 
materials  chosen  for  comparison. 

The  statement  of  the  true  method  of  procedure  in  this 
sphere  is  very  simple.  What  the  investigator  has  to  do  is  to 
make  the  comparison  of  Aryan  and  Semitic  roots  after  the 
forms  chosen  for  the  purpose  have  been  reduced  to  their  sim- 
plest expression.  That  is,  they  must  be  proved  to  be  actual 
roots  in  their  respective  idioms,  and  they  must  be  treated  as 
expressing  the  root  idea.  This,  however,  involves  a  careful 
study  of  the  principles  of  root  formation  and  development  in 
the  two  systems  in  their  primitive  individual  history.  That 
is  to  say,  we  must  deal  not  with  current  roots  found  in 
the  Aryan  and  Semitic  families  of  speech,  but  with  Proto- 
Aryan  and  Proto-Semitic  roots ;  and  these  must  be  elim- 
inated according  to  the  laws  which  are  found  to  prevail  in 
their  respective  spheres.  In  the  following  brief  review  of  the 
efforts  heretofore  made  to  harmonize  the  Aryan  and  Semi- 
tic languages,  the  theories  will  be  judged  according  to  the 
canons  just  laid  down.  That  most  of  the  theorists  have 
failed  to  secure  even  a  patient  hearing  from  many  lead- 
ing linguistic  scientists  is  due  in  great  part  to  the  fact 
that  they  have  almost  wholly  disregarded  these  axiomatic 
principles. 

The  whole  period  covered  by  attempts  to  settle  the  general 
problem  before  us  might  be  properly  divided  at  the  point  of 
time  when  comparative  philology  was  established  as  a  science. 
Previously  to  that  epoch  the  question  cannot  be  said  in 
strictness  to  have  had  a  history ;  for  there  is  no  history 
where  there  is  no  law  of  progress.  But  even  in  the  later  era 
we  shall  have  to  distinguish  between  those  theories  which 
have  been  advanced  without  regard  to  the  just  demands  of  sci- 
ence, and  to  those  which  show  more  or  less  deference  to  its 
methods  as  well  as  its  spirit.  Before  the  science  of  lan- 
guage was  founded,  even  in  its  broadest  outlines,  it  was  im- 
possible  that    any    intelligent   view   of   the    subject    could 


6  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

be  reached.     Even  the  very  conditions  of  the  investigation 
could  not  be  apprehended.     Theories  the  most  vague   and 
unsupported  were   held  as  to  the  relations  of   the  various 
dialects  of  human  speech.     Previously  to  the  close  of  the 
last  century,  the  comparative  treatment   of   languages  was 
usually  only  a  sort  of  philological  alchemy,  in  which  Hebrew, 
roots  played  the  part  of  the  philosopher's  stone.     Instead  of 
regarding  the  several  idioms  of  the  world  as  developed  from 
decayed  and  germinal  foriUs,  one  language,  accessible  only 
in   the   literary  and   cultivated  periods  of   its  history,  was 
venerated  as  the  common  source  of   all  the  rest,  and  lan- 
guages the  most  diverse  in  structure  and  in  typical  character 
were  believed  to  have  been  developed  naturally  and  gradu- 
ally from  one  of  the  least  flexible  and  versatile  of  all  forms 
of  speech.     This  notion  was  based  upon  the  persuasion  that 
the  oldest  records  of  the  race  must  have  been  composed  in 
the  earliest  language,  and  that  the  most  sacred  of  all  tongues 
in  its  history  and  varied  associations   must  have  been  the 
form  of  speech  bestowed  upon  man  at  his  creation  by  the 
gift  of  his  Creator.     Originating  among  the  teachers  of  the 
synagogue,  we  know  not  how  early,  it  was  embraced  by  the 
Fathers  of  the  Christian  church,^  and  held  almost  undisputed 
sway  until  the  comparison  of  languages  became  a  subject  of 
sober  inquiry .^    During  the  IVIiddle  Ages,  when  the  rabbins 
engrossed  the  study  of  the  sacred  languages,  and  continued 
to  illustrate  the  congenial  theory  of  the  antiquity  and  origi- 
nality of  the  Hebrew  tongue,  there  was  not  the  interest  or 
the  knowledge  in  the  Christian  church  that  would  have  been 
necessary  for  its  intelligent  criticism.     In  the  period  between 
the  revival  of  learning  and  the  development  of  the  science 
of  comparative  philology,  there  was,  indeed,  occasional  ob- 
jection to  this  venerable  doctrine ;  but  it  was  based  rather 

1  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  however,  surmised  that  the  Hebrew  was  one  of  the  lan- 
guages that  arose  out  of  the  confusion  at  BabeL  Orat.  contra  Eunom.,  xii. 
Quoted  by  Franz  Dclitzsch,  Jesurun,  p.  48. 

2  Theodoret,  Philo  Judaeus,  and  some  of  the  rabbins  regarded  the  Aramaic 
as  the  more  ancient  idiom.  This,  however,  is  only  a  sort  of  collateral  theory. 
Theodoret  supposed  that  the  Hebrew  was  a  special  divine  revelation  to  Moses. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  7 

upon  its  general  improbability,  than  upon  definite  scientific 
evidence.  During  this  period,  also,  a  modification  of  the  old 
opinion  grew  into  some  favor ;  according  to  which  the  He- 
brew was  held  to  be,  if  not  the  source  of  all  other  languages, 
at  least  the  most  ancient,  and  the  one  which  preserved  with 
the  least  degree  of  change  the  original  stock  of  roots,  and 
therefore  the  standard  with  which  the  verbal  forms  of  all 
other  tongues  should  be  directly  compared.  The  doctrine, 
in  the  one  or  the  other  of  its  general  forms,  was  held  very 
tenaciously;  and,  etymology  being  rather  an  art  than  a 
science,  or  rather  an  art  founded  upon  no  science,  the  task 
of  comparison  and  assimilation  was  a  very  simple  affair.  For, 
as  the  expounders  of  the  theory  could  not  be  refuted  by  an 
appeal  to  established  laws  of  relationship  between  the  various 
forms  of  speech,  they  were  free  to  cite  at  pleasure  mere 
coincidences  and  fanciful  analogies  as  proofs  of  true  affinity, 
and  thus  to  vindicate  the  supposed  sacred  prerogatives  of 
the  Hebrew  tongue ;  being  opposed  only  by  the  smiles  of  an 
incredulous  few,  which  they  could  afford  to  ignore,  as  having 
the  support  of  nearly  all  who  were  interested  in  the  subject. 
This  dogma,  so  long  and  widely  and  firmly  held,  has  now 
no  more  than  a  historical  significance,  and  needs  no  labored 
or  formal  disproof.  It  is  sufficient  to  remark  that  the  Hebrew 
has  no  claim  to  consideration,  in  this  connection,  above  its 
Semitic  sisters  or  reputed  Indo-European  cousins,  and  that 
its  long  ascendency  has  been  due,  under  the  conditions  of 
erroneous  linguistic  principles,  simply  to  its  high  antiquity 
and  the  circumstance  that  it  is  the  best  known  and  the  most 
highly  venerated  of  its  ancient  family,  \)y  reason  of  its  sacred 
associations.  The  Highlander  and  the  Welshman,  who  affirm 
that  their  respective  dialects  have  also  a  claim  to  be  con- 
sidered the  primitive  languages,  have  much  of  the  same  kind 
of  evidence  to  adduce  as  that  which  lias  always  been  advanced 
in  behalf  of  the  Hebrew ;  and  they,  in  their  turn,  might  be 
met  by  a  strong  array  of  striking  analogies,  presented  with 
equal  confidence,  as  proof  that  the  idiom  of  the  Sandwich 
Islanders  should  not  be  left  out  of  sight  in  any  candid 
examination  of  the  question. 


8  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

It  will  perhaps  be  proper  to  illustrate  the  methods  of  this 
system  of  comparison  by  a  few  instances  selected  from  the 
works  of  writers  in  recent  times,  and  even  in  the  present 
century.  They  will  forcibly  suggest  the  great  advance  made 
in  linguistic  science  within  the  last  sixty  or  seventy  years, 
and  may  also  serve  as  a  warning  to  any  who  may  still  insist 
on  a  radical  affinity  between  verbal  forms  on  the  evidence  of 
mere  external  resemblance. 

We  find  the  acute  and  learned  Moses  Mendelssohn  ^  among 
the  later  serious  advocates  of  the  doctrine  that  the  Hebrew 
is  the  parent  of  all  other  idioms.  Matthias  Norberg,'-^  a  re- 
spected scholar  of  the  early  part  of  this  century,  after  close 
scrutiny,  detected  in  the  Greek  language  the  inherited  linea- 
ments of  the  same  venerable  and  prolific  parent.  According 
to  him,  €6vo<;  arose  from  ns ,  a  people,  by  the  insertion  of  0 ; 
X67(o9)  was  transposed  from  hip ,  a  voice  ;  fivdio),  was  changed 
from  b^ii^ ,  to  liken.  But  the  most  frank  and  hearty  exposition 
of  the  theory  that  we  have  seen  is  a  little  book  by  the  Rev. 
Alexander  Pirie,^  a  man  of  considerable  linguistic  attain- 
ments, but  of  still  greater  ingenuity.  We  cite  some  of  his 
numerous  derivations.  He  supposes  that  our  word  bog 
comes  from  nrn,  to  weep  or  run  with  water;  that  boggle 
(bogle)  is  connected  with  bnn ,  as  inspiring  terror  ;  and  that 
tar  is  derived  from  ^stn,  to  mark,  as  being  much  used  for 
marking  sheep,  sacks,  etc.  From  osn  he  would  deduce  the 
Latin  rego,  because  stoning  was  an  exercise  of  the  supreme 
authority  as  a  judicial  punishment.  In  his  opinion,  ^aa,  "  to 
retribute,"  gave  rise  among  the  Hebrews  to  the  word  camel, 
on  account  of  the  revengeful   disposition   of  that  animal.'* 

1  In  prolegomena  to  his  edition  of  the  Pentateuch,  cited  by  Delitzsch,  Jesurun, 
p.  46. 

2  See  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  Indogermanisch-Semitische  Wurzelvcrwandtschaft, 
p.  3. 

3  A  Dissertation  on  the  Hebrew  Roots,  intended  to  point  out  their  extensive 
influence  on  all  known  languages  (Edinburgh,  1807).  The  introduction, 
written  by  another  hand,  says  of  the  author,  "  had  he  never  lifted  his  pen  on 
any  other  subject,  the  following  pages  would  establish  his  character  as  a  scholar 
and  a  Christian." 

*  This  derivation,  however,  it  should  be  remarked,  was  once  quite  common. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  9 

325,  to  steal,  gives  the  origin  of  our  word  knave,  which  "  at 
present  is  used  in  a  bad  sense,  the  same  in  which  the  Hebrews 
used  it."  Comparing  Solomon's  description  of  his  spouse 
as  "  a  garden  inclosed,"  he  imagines  that  135  includes  the  idea 
of  beauty,  which  is  guarded  with  peculiar  care,  and  that  hence 
arises  the  Greek  71/M; ;  while  '•  the  cognate  Latin  g-enita,  a 
daughter,  is  plainly  tlie  source  of  our  Janet.''''  T''!  or  "jn,  to 
judge,  gave  birth  to  a  numerous  progeny,  heov,  what  is 
just,  and  Seti/o?,  skilled  (in  judging),  do  not  surprise  us  very 
much ;  but  we  are  further  asked  to  accept  StV?;,  whirlpool, 
or  whirlwind,  "  from  the  idea  of  vehemence  in  pleading." 
And,  as  the  judgment-seats  of  antiquity  were  often  groves, 
hevhpov  is  added  to  the  family,  which  is  next  increased  by 
the  accession  of  our  English  t/e/^,  because  oracular  judgments 
were  frequently  delivered  from  caverns.  For  a  similar 
reason  any  hollow  vessel  came  to  be  called  a  tun,  "  the  d 
being  changed  into  t,  as  usual."  As  a  judge  held  a  dis- 
tinguished station,  the  Spanish  Don  is  next  admitted  to  the 
domestic  circle ;  and  since  y^'i  also  means  to  dispute,  and  "  as 
people  in  angry  dispute  are  still  said  to  be  teethy,  or  to  show 
their  teeth,"  it  was  thought  inhospitable  to  leave  the  Latin 
dens  chattering  outside  in  the  cold,  n^a ,  with  other  meanings, 
has  the  sense  of  carrying  away  captive.  "  Now  the  x  prefixed 
forms  a  noun ;  before  5  it  sounds  ang,  hence  the  Teutonic 
angel,  with  its  cognates."  The  confusion  of  tongues  at 
Babel  arose,  he  says,  from  a  defect  of  labial  utterance. 
"When  one  would  have  said  Bel  (bsn),  he  said  Babel.  Hence 
also  our  word  babble.  He  is  very  sparing  of  onomatopoetic 
affinities ;  but  he  would  probably  concede  to  that  class  of 
analogies  the  relation  he  holds  to  exist  between  the  Hebrew 
i:s  ,  sorrow,  and  och  hone  I 

These  instances,  though  perhaps  more  whimsical,  are  not 
more  unreasonable,  than  many  of  the  combinations  that  have 
long  been  held,  and  are  still  to  be  met  with  in  current  litera- 
ture. We  find  a  writer  so  recent  and  influential  as  the 
late  Albert  Barnes  stating,  in  his  popular  commentary 
on  Job,  that  our  word  evil  comes  from  the  Hebrew  iiiix      It 


10  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

is  surely  necessary,  in  view  of  such  facts,  that  the  general 
principles  of  the  science  of  language  should  be  made  an 
essential  part  of  a  liberal  education,  at  least  to  such  an 
extent  that  one  will  not  need  to  be  a  specialist  to  be  able  to 
detect  and  disprove  such  inaccuracies  as  these. 

But  we  must  now  consider  the  more  safe  and  sober  at- 
tempts  that  have   been   made  to   compare  the   two   great 
families  before  us.    The  study  of  the  Sanskrit,  which  afforded 
a  clew  to  the  mazes  of  the  varied  forms  of  Indo-European 
speech,  was  also  the  occasion  of  a  more  just  appreciation  of 
the  conditions  of  the  problem  we  are  considering.     In  that 
ancient  language,  so  perfect  and  intelligible   in    structure, 
large  numbers  of  Aryan  words  were  detected  in  their  most 
elementary  accessible  form,  revealing  to  the  acute  and  delicate 
perception  of  such  men  as  W.  von  Ilumboldt,  Grimm,  and 
Bopp  the  laws  which  determined  their  modification  into  other 
varieties  of  expression.     Science  having  thus  vindicated  her 
claim  to  this  vast  province  of  speech,  it  was  felt  that  other 
districts  —  nay,  the  whole  realm  of  human  language  —  must 
also  be  subject  to  her  of   right.     Henceforth  the  I'eign  of 
fancy  and  caprice  in  these  affairs  was  at  an  end ;  and  their 
intrusions  would  always  be  unwelcome  to  the  new  regime, 
though  they  could  not  always  be  repelled.     In  the  treatment 
of  the  relations  between  the  two  great  families  of  speech, 
now  clearly  established  and  defined,  as  well  as  between  the 
several  languages  in  each,  it  was  felt  that  laws  i-egulating 
all  changes  of  form  must  be  sought  and  assumed  to  exist, 
and  hence  also  that  the  utmost  caution  must  be  used  in  the 
comparison.     This,  we  mean  to  say,  was  the  tendency  of  the 
method  of  inquiry,  and  the  professed  aim  of  the  several  in- 
vestigators.    Some,  however,  while  recognizing  the  necessity 
of  this  principle,  have  failed,  unconsciously,  to  act  upon  it, 
being  frequently  led  to  violent  and  capricious  assumptions 
through  their  eagerness  to  attain  the  final  theory  of  solution. 
Others,  again,  influenced  either  by  dogmatic  prejudices  or 
by  a  conservative  temper,  have  refused  to   indulge  in  any 
speculations   upon   the  subject,  or  go   so  far  as  to  assert 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        11 

that  the  languages  themselves,  as  well  as  the  races  they 
typically  represent,  can  never  be  proved  to  have  been  origi- 
nally identical. 

With  regard  to  the  earliest  portions  of  the  present  period, 
we  have  chiefly  to  remark  a  tendency  to  bring  Semitic  words 
into  close  connection  with  the  widely-related  and  hospitable 
Sanskrit.  Adelung's  Mithridates,  the  monumental  boundary- 
mark  between  the  old  and  the  new  regions  of  philological 
research,  holds  also  a  certain  dividing-place  in  the  history  of 
the  present  question.  Its  learned  author  was  the  first  to 
compare,  to  any  extent,  the  Sanskrit  with  the  Semitic  vocab- 
ulary. As  to  his  method,  however,  he  is  to  be  placed  wholly 
within  the  old  unscientific  period.  Not  being  himself  a 
Sanskrit  scholar,  he  was  the  more  inclined  to  the  prevalent 
error  of  comparing  full-grown  words,  and  not  roots,  or  even 
stems,  in  the  languages  discussed.  He  connects,  for  example, 
the  Sanskrit  4dima,  first,  with  the  Hebrew  onx  ,  Adam. 

Some  of  the  greatest  pioneers  of  philological  science,  also, 
with  all  their  sagacity  and  penetration,  were  carried  beyond 
the  limits  of  probability  in  their  theories,  or  rather  conjec- 
tures, upon  this  subject.  Being  not,  in  general,  Semitic 
scholars,  and  their  survey  being  necessarily  rapid  and  super- 
ficial, their  analysis  was  not  sufficiently  profound  to  deter 
them  from  assuming  close  relations  to  exist  between  forms 
whicli  had  only  a  casual  and  external  resemblance.  The 
tendency  to  assimilate  tlie  two  idioms,  excited  by  the  mag- 
nificent results  of  the  comparison  of  the  several  Aryan 
languages,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  even  "W.  von 
Humboldt  accepted  a  multitude  of  the  most  superficial  com- 
binations as  proving  an  essential  affinity  between  the  forms 
compared.  5opp,  also,  attempted  to  establish  a  number  of 
analogies  which  must  be  called  forced  and  arbitrary ;  though 
that  great  philologist  was  unwilling  to  guarantee  the  absolute 
correctness  of  all  his  conclusions  on  this  subject. 

As  we  are  now  approaching  the  latest  period  of  the  inves- 
tigation, and  shall  have  to  speak  of  the  comparative  value  of 
theories   largely  influential   at   the   present  time,  we  may 


12         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

refer  in  passing  to  an  opinion  advocated  at  one  time  by 
Lepsins  and  Benfey  and  more  positively  asserted  by  Bunsen 
(in  his  Outlines  of  the  Philosophy  of  Universal  History,  and 
elsewhere).  The  view  held  by  them  was,  in  general  terms, 
that  the  Semitic  and  Aryan  families  are  related  to  one  an- 
other, and  have  as  intermediary  the  Coptic,  or  rather  the  an- 
cient Egyptian,  as  representing  the  North  African  group  of  lan- 
guages. The  leading  arguments  were,  that  the  striking  resem- 
blances and  analogies  between  the  grammatical  forms  of  the 
Coptic  and  the  Semitic  pointed  clearly  to  a  connection  be- 
tween those  languages,  while  the  fact  that  many  coincidences 
were  found  between  Indo-European  and  North  African  vocables 
created  a  presumption  in  favor  of  an  early  relationship  be- 
tween these  also.  In  the  defence  of  these  positions  Lepsius^ 
and  Benfey  ^  wrote  special  treatises,  and  the  same  theory  was 
maintained  by  the  Egyptologist  Schwartze  in  his  work  on 
Ancient  Egypt  (Vol.  1. 1843).  It  is  doubtful  if  the  survivors 
of  this  group  of  theorists  would  now  maintain  this  doctrine, 
at  least  as- far  as  the  Indo-European  family  is  concerned.^ 
And  it  must  be  allowed  that  the  verbal  resemblances  be- 
tween the  Indo-European  and  North  African  families  of 
speech  are  too  sporadic,  and  apparently  too  superficial,  to  war- 
rant any  serious  attempt  to  compare  them  in  the  present 
state  of  science.  The  question  of  affinity  between  the  Semitic 
and  North  African  families  is  still  undecided.^ 

Gesenius,  the  great  lexicographer,  and  inaugurator  of  sci- 
entific Semitic  studies  in  Germany,  maintained,  in  general,  a 
neutral  attitude  towards  the  problem  before  us.  True  to 
the  empirical  principles  of  his  philosophy  of  language  he  re- 
frained from  dogmatic  generalizing  while  he  could  not  make 

1  Zwei  sprachvergleichende  Abhandlungen  (18.36.) 

2  Das  verhaltniss  d.  agypt.  Sprache  zum  scmitischen  Sprachstaram  (1844). 

8  With  regard  to  Lepsius  it  may  be  inferred  from  his  last  work,  Nubische 
Grammatik  (Berlin,  1880),  p.  iii  ff.,  that  his  present  views  on  the  question  of 
the  classification  of  languages  exclude  the  above  thcor}'. 

*  The  theory  is  discussfed  unfavorably,  from  his  philosophical  point  of  view, 
by  Renan,  Histoire  ge'ne'rjile  des  langues  semitiques  (4th  ed.,  Paris,  1863),  p. 
80  ff.,  456  f.  Cf.  the  more  intelligent  and  liberal  remarks  of  Sayce,  Introduction 
to  the  Science  of  Language  (London,  1880),  p.  178  ff. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.     13 

certain  profrregs  towards  fixed  underlying  principles  of  unity. 
It  is  true  that  botli  in  his  Manual-Lexicon  and  in  his  Thesau- 
rus he  has  instituted  a  vast  number  of  verbal  comparisons 
■with  Indo-European  forms,  which  have  helped  more  than  all 
else  written  upon  the  subject  to  bring  the  question  before 
the  minds  of  ordinary  students,  and  to  affect  their  opinions 
regarding  it.  But  he  refrained  from  presenting  dogmatically 
a  theory  of  these  analogies,  being  inclined  to  believe,  until 
further  light  should  be  thrown  upon  the  problem,  that  they 
■were  the  result  either  of  an  early  contact  of  the  races  leading 
to  an  exchange  of  vocables,  or  of  onomatopoeia,  or  of  mere 
accident.  It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  his  senti 
ments  on  this  subject  were  formed  before  modern  science 
had  reached  those  of  its  grandest  conclusions  which  might 
well  justify  still  broader  assumptions.  Yet  he  adopted  and 
amply  illustrated  a  theory  whose  establishment  would  tend 
towards  the  solution  of  the  problem  —  the  doctrine,  namely, 
that  the  triliteral  Semitic  stems  were  reduci])le  to  significant 
and  fundamental  biliteral  roots  contained  in  the  first  two 
consonants ;  the  last  letter  exerting  the  special  modifying 
influence  that  determines  the  meaning  of  the  word.  In 
large  numbers  of  these  ultimate  roots  he  discovered  close 
correspondences  "with  Indo-European  forms,  which,  however, 
he  declined  to  accept  as  conclusive  proof  of  internal  rela- 
tionship. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  opinions  of  two  authors 
whose  opinions  have  been  so  fully  elaborated  as  to  entitle 
them  to  be  considered  the  founders  of  a  special  school  *  of 
Semitic   philology.     We   mean    Julius   Fuerst  ^   and   Franz 

1  The  "Analytico-historical,"  so-called,  because,  on  the  one  hand,  according 
to  its  principles,  the  various  elements  of  languaj^e  and  of  individual  words  are 
held  to  be  endowed  with  inherent  significance  which  is  to  be  determined  by  a 
profound  analysis,  and  because,  on  the  other  hand,  they  call  to  the  aid  of  their 
investigations  a  body  of  Jewish  tradition,  such  as  the  Targums,  the  Talmud,  the 
Masora,  and  the  later  Rabbinical  writings.  The  name  serves  to  distinguish  their 
system  from  the  so-called  "  empirical  "  school  of  Gesenius,  and  the  "  critical "  or 
philosophical  school  of  Ewald.  These  terms  have  now  little  significance,  as  they 
serve  to  designate  tendencies  or  principles  rather  than  well-defined  sects  or  parties. 

2  Lehrgebaude  der  aramaischen  Idiome  mit  Bezng  auf  die  indo-germanischen 


14      KELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

Delitzscli,^  theorists  whose  vast  learning  and  patient  industry 
it  is  impossible  not  to  admire,  but  whose  philological  system 
it  is  equally  impossible  to  accept.  In  it  the  process  of  verbal 
analysis  for  the  purposes  of  comparison  with  analogous  forms 
is  carried  to  its  greatest  extreme.  The  chief  monuments  of 
this  system  are  the  Jesurun  of  Delitzsch  and  the  Woerter- 
bucli  of  Fuerst ;  the  former  an  exposition  and  defence  of  its 
principles  ;  the  latter,  the  repository  of  its  practical  results. 
Their  leading  positions  may  be  summarized  as  follows  :  (1) 
That  all  languages  have  been  developed  from  one  common 
stock  of  elements,  all  of  which,  in  every  part  of  speech  and 
in  every  word,  have  a  significance,  definite  and  divinely 
imparted.  (2)  That  this  innate  idea  is  to  be  educed  through 
a  minute  analysis  of  each  form,  and  the  widest  comparison 
with  the  forms  of  other  dialects  of  the  language  of  mankind. 

(3)  That  the  Sanskrit  is  the  master-key  to  unlock  the  secrets 
of  all  Aryo-Semitic  speech,  there  having  been  originally  one 
"  Sanskrito-Semitic  "  idiom,  from  which  proceeded  six  families 
of  speech  —  the  Sanskrit,  the  Medo-Persian,  Semitic,  Graeco- 
Latin,  Germanic,  and  Slavonic.  They  thus  annul  the  ordinary 
classification,  and  make  all  the  Semitic  dialects  together  a 
sister  idiom  to  each  member  of  the  great  Aryan   division. 

(4)  That,  accordingly,  the  chief  resort  for  purposes  of  com- 
parison is  the  Sanskrit,  while  the  other  related  languages 
should  also  be  consulted  as  supplementary  and  illustrative. 

(5)  That  all  Semitic  triliteral  forms  can  be  traced  to  original 
biliterals,  parallel  to  the  most  numerous  class  of  Sanskrit 
roots,  and  being  the  significant  element  in  each  form,  as 
containing  the  original  and  typical  idea.  (6)  That  the 
remaining  portion,  the  determinative  modifying  element,  con- 
sists of  a  suffix,  or,  far  more  frequently,  a  prefix,  corre- 
sponding in  meaning,  and  as  nearly  as  possible  in  form,  to 
the  Sanskrit  prepositions.  In  the  elucidation  of  this  system 
they  have  subjected  a  vast  number  of  forms  to  examination 

Sprachen.    Leipzig,  1835.    Librorum  Sacrorum  Concordantiae.    Leipzig,  1840 
Hebraisches  und  chaldaisches  Woertcrbuch.     Leipzig,  1857-61. 

^  Jesurun  ;   sive  Isapoge  in   prammaticam   et   lexicographiam  linguae  He- 
braicae,  contra  G.  Gesenium  et  H.  Ewaldum.   Grinomae,  1838. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         15 

and  have  besides  illustrated  their  conclusions  by  citations 
chiefly  from  authors  of  the  rabbinical  school,  the  products  of 
whose  fancy  they  have  elevated  to  the  dig-nity  of  scientific 
demonstration.  The  objections  to  the  whole  theory  are  ob- 
vious :  (1)  Tlie  reduction  of  the  triliteral  Semitic  roots  to 
biliterals  is  too  through-going  and  mechanical.  Analysis  does 
not  always  yield  biliteral  roots  ;  nor  is  it  to  be  expected  that  it 
should.  Triliterals,  as  well  as  biliterals,  have  existed  from  the 
beginning.  (2)  The  combinations  attempted  with  the  so-called 
sister  tongues  are  not  made  upon  any  sound  etymological  prin- 
ciple, nor  are  the  forms  reducible,  in  many  instances,  to  any- 
thing like  even  external  resemblance.  The  following  com- 
parisons may  be  cited  as  evidence  (Jesurun.  p.  175),  'nn"a,  to 
be  pure,  with  Sanskrit  (^7'd  and  Lat.  cremare,  to  burn  ;  'fc-'^,  to 
conceal,  with  Gr.  ixeveiv^  and  Lat.  manere,  to  remain  ;  1152-3 , 
to  subdue,  with  Skr.  pad,  to  go,  and  Gr.  Trdreip.  (3)  The  pre- 
positional additions  which  are  supposed  to  have  been  prefixed 
to  the  biliteral  roots  do  not  preserve  any  fixed  and  certain 
meaning  in  the  various  instances  cited  as  illustrations. 

The  views  of  Ewald,  the  greatest  grammatical  and  his- 
torical genius  among  the  Semitists  of  the  last  generation,  are 
deserving  of  consideration.  As  might  be  expected,  they  are 
original  and  unique.  Employing  his  special  faculty  of  inves- 
tigating the  nature  and  relations  of  grammatical  forms,  he 
endeavored  to  prove  by  researches  in  the  Indo-European, 
Semitic,  North  African,  and  (so-called)  Turanian  families  of 
speech,  that  these  are  outgrowths  of  a  common  stock,  which 
is  most  nearly  represented  now  by  the  Indo-European.  A 
discussion  of  this  view  will  have  to  be  made  in  the  second 
chapter,  when  we  come  to  consider  the  question  of  criteria  of 
affinity  particularly.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  in  the  meantime 
that  the  evidence  adduced  in  its  favor  is  precarious  in  its  very 
nature,  and  therefore  inconclusive.  He  made  subordinate  the 
question  of  the  relations  of  special  words  or  predicative  roots, 
though  he  maintained  the  possibility  of  such  combinations, 
and  a  considerable  number  of  comparisons  may  be  gathered 
from  Ills  various  linguistic  writings,  all  of  them  ingenious, 


16         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

but  none  of  them  convincing,  because  not  based  upon  a  sys- 
tematic theory.  Singularly  enough,  for  a  man  of  his  insight, 
he  failed  to  trace  such  words  to  their  primary  expression. 

An  ambitious  and  laborious  effort  was  made  by  Ernst 
Meier,  in  his  Hebraisches  Wurzelworterbuch  (1845),  to  con- 
struct a  dictionary  of  Hebrew  etymology,  upon  a  theory 
which  must  be  pronounced  extravagant  and  on  all  grounds 
untenable.  His  main  position  was,  that  the  stock  of  roots 
in  the  two  families  might  be  reduced  by  analysis  to  a  mere 
handful' ;  that  the  Semitic  forms,  which  are  currently  larger 
than  those  of  the  Aryan  division,  might  be  brought  to  a  pri- 
mary conformity  with  the  latter,  by  throwing  off  from  each 
of  the  triliterals  a  letter  which  was  regarded  as  secondary. 
Such  letters  were  supposed  to  have  been  developed  in 
accordance  with  an  assumed  principle  of  reduplication  in 
the  formation  of  verb-stems,  analogous  to  that  which  pre- 
vails in  Aryan  perfects.  That  is  to  say,  one  of  the  primary 
letters  might  be  repeated  in  the  formation  of  the  stems  of 
the  Semitic  perfect  tense,  and  this  was  followed  by  the 
adoption  of  the  developed  forms  as  current  roots.  Since, 
however,  the  repetition  of  the  same  sound  was  felt  to  be  dis- 
agreeable, the  secondary  letter  was  dissimilated  from  its  pri- 
mary in  most  cases,  though  the  limit  of  choice  was  confined, 
in  each  instance,  to  its  own  class  of  sounds.^ 

The  most  laborious  and  persevering  investigator  of  the 
subject  in  recent  times  is  Rudolf  von  Raumer,  who  is  also 
well  known  through  his  Indo-European  researches.  The 
reader  will  find  his  theories  succinctly  stated  in  his  latest 
contribution. 2  He  has  considered  it  a  necessity  to  establish 
laws  of  phonetic  representation  regulating  the  changes  uiader- 
gone  by  roots  that  appear  in  both  families.  These  are  as 
follows  :  (1)  The  hard  Semitic  explosives  or  mutes  are  rep- 
resented etymologically  by  the  corresponding  Aryan  sounds  ; 
(2)  the  soft  Semitic  explosives  are  mostly  represented  by  the 

^  Cf.  Friedrich  Dclitzsch,  op.  cit.  p.  8. 

2  Zeitschrift  fiir  sprachvergleichende  Sprachforschung,  xxii.  p.  235-249. 
Compare  also  D.  Pezzi :  Glottologia  aria  recentissima  (Turin,  1877),  p.  37-41. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        17 

hard  Aryan  sounds  of  the  same  organs.  On  these  assump- 
tions it  is  obvious  to  remark  that  there  is  no  regularity  in 
the  alleged  correspondences.  It  follows  from  his  principles 
that  the  Aryan  t,  for  example,  may  be  represented  either  by 
Semitic  t  or  d;  khy  k  or  g- ;  phy  p  or  b.  We  do  not  main- 
tain, in  the  meantime,  that  this  cannot  be  a  fact ;  but  it  is 
evidently  not  in  harmony  with  the  observed  facts  of  other 
languages  that  are  mutually  related,  in  which  the  mutes  as 
well  as  other  sounds  are  either  equivalents,  or  are  differ- 
entiated according  to  laws  normally  invariable.  As  Von 
Raumer's  scheme  is  without  observed  analogy,  very  strong 
evidence  should  be  adduced  in  its  support  before  it  is  entitled 
to  acceptance.  But  in  the  combination  which  he  makes  for 
the  purpose  of  proving  his  assumed  laws  he  does  not  advance 
much  beyond  his  predecessors.  He  seems  not  to  have  kept 
in  mind  the  consideration  that,  if  the  two  families  were  ever 
one,  they  must  have  separated  before  the  full-grown  noun 
and  verb  stems  in  each  system  were  developed  ;  for  he  com- 
mits the  error  of  failing  to  search  for  Proto-Aryan  and 
Proto-Semitic  roots,  as  furnishing  the  only  basis  on  which 
lawful  comparisons  can  be  made.  His  combinations  are  in 
general  only  a  little  less  improbable  than  those  of  Fiirst  and 
Delitzsch,  referred  to  above.  His  assumed  phonetic  laws  are, 
therefore,  still  unproved. 

The  Italian  scholar,  G.  I.  Ascoli,  has  given  the  weight  of 
his  great  name  to  the  general  theory  of  an  ultimate  relation- 
ship of  the  two  families.  He  has,  in  letters  addressed  to 
Bopp  and  A.  Kuhn  and  in  contributions  to  scientific  jour- 
nals in  Italy,  also  attempted  to  bring  forward  special  evi- 
dence for  this  doctrine  based  upon  the  resemblance  between 
certain  formative  elements  (case-endings,  etc.)  in  the  re- 
spective systems.  In  this  he  follows  close  upon  the  track  of 
Ewald,  though  in  a  narrower  field,  and  the  nature  of  the 
proof  is  equally  uncertain  with  that  adduced  by  the  latter. 
He  also  deals  with  the  well-known  similarities  between  some 
of  the  numerals  and  most  of  the  pronominal  stems,  a  subject 
to  which  Lepsius  had  before  him   given   special   attention. 


18  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

The  inherent  difficulties  of  this  branch  of  the  investigation 
are  that  we  do  not  know  the  roots  of  the  numerals,  and  that 
the  further  back  we  go  to  their  primary  forms  the  less  resem- 
blance they  seem  to  show  ;  while  as  to  the  pronouns,  as  we 
shall  see  later,  the  phonological  investigation  is  somewhat 
uncertain.  The  testimony  from  this  source  is,  moreover,  too 
general  to  be  universally  satisfactory,  since  several  pronouns 
are  alike  in  a  great  many  other  families  of  speech.  Ascoli 
has  also  formulated  laws  of  phonetic  change.  To  Von 
Raumer's  rules  he  adds  a  third,  to  the  effect  that  an  Aryan 
g  is  represented  in  Semitic  by  p.  The  evidence  given  for 
this  is  scanty  and  precarious. 

The  most  scientific  and  also  the  most  satisfactory  attempt 
to  prove  an  Aryo-Semitic  relationship  is  undoubtedly  that 
of  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  in  his  Indogermanisch-Semitische 
Wurzelverwandtschaft  (1873).  As  to  his  general  attitude 
towards  the  question,  he  is  fully  convinced  of  the  hopeless- 
ness of  attempting  to  reconcile  the  divergent  grammatical 
systems  ;  but  holds  it  to  be  a  possibility,  that  at  some  remote 
period,  before  any  flectional  tendency  was  exhibited  in  either, 
they  possessed  a  common  stock  of  roots.  In  seeking  to 
ascertain  the  roots  which  may  be  shown  to  have  once  been 
the  same,  he  recognizes  the  principle  that  we  must  aim  to 
draw  them  only  from  the  original  languages  from  which  the 
two  families  arose  respectively.  In  making  up  the  list  of 
dialects  from  which  the  original  Semitic  language  must  be 
constructed,  as  far  as  its  roots  are  concerned,  he  rejects  the 
Old  Egyptian  rightly  and  the  Assyrian  wrongly.  His  view 
as  to  the  latter  appears  (p.  29)  to  have  been,  that  for  lexical 
purposes  Assyrian  roots  could  not  afford  any  essential  help 
in  the  solution  of  the  problem.  But  his  own  valuable  labors 
since  then  in  the  interpretation  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions 
have  only  confirmed  the  justice  of  the  claim,  long  since  put 
forth,  for  the  independent  character  and  essential  importance 
of  the  Assyrio-Babylonian  branch  of  the  Semitic  family. 

When  Dr.  Delitzsch  comes  to  the  treatment  of  the  roots 
that  are  eligible  for  comparison,  he  shows  an  advance  upon 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        19 

his  predecessors  in  the  endeavor  to  employ  a  systematic 
theory  as  to  the  constitution  of  those  roots.  Taking  advan- 
tage of  the  labors  of  Indo-European  investigators,  such  as 
Curtius  and  Fick,  he  assumes  as  valid  the  distinction  made 
by  them  between  primary  and  secondary  roots,  according  to 
which  the  latter  differ  from  the  former  through  the  posses- 
sion of  one  or  more  determinative  letters,  which  represent, 
according  to  a  sort  of  phonological  symbolism,  modifications 
of  the  radical  notion  (p.  33  ff.).  His  views  on  this  branch 
of  the  subject  seem  to  be  philosophical  and  sound.  In  taking 
up  the  Semitic  roots,  lie  shows  evidence  of  not  having  made 
a  careful  and  thorough  analysis.  He  proposes  to  throw  off 
the  old  limitations  occasioned  by  the  theory  of  biliteral  as 
distinguished  from  triliteral  roots,  according  to  which  the 
former  are  eligible  for  comparison  with  outside  languages, 
while  the  latter  are  not.  But  that  he  is  really  controlled  hy 
that  theory  is  plain  from  his  classification  of  Semitic  roots 
(p.  43  ff.).  He  draws  the  line  broadly  between  roots  with 
"  weak  "  and  those  with  "  strong"  letters.  In  the  former  class 
the  weak  letters  are  claimed  to  have  little  or  no  essential 
significance,  while  in  the  latter  each  letter  is  primary  and 
autonomous  and  the  forms  containing  it  may  be  put  directly 
on  a  level  with  the  Aryan  roots.  Now  what  are  these  insig- 
nificant weak  letters  ?  We  find  that  along  with  s< ,  '^,  and  i,  the 
same  unimportant  part  is  assigned  to  n  and  ».  Why  n  should 
be  excluded  does  not  appear.  It  is  no  more  and  no  less  an 
original  independent  sound  than  h  or  s.  But  the  radical 
error  here  is  the  assumption  that  because  roots  containing 
these  letters  are  "weak"  in  the  inflections,  the  sounds 
themselves  must  be  adventitious  and  unmeaning.  The  fact  is, 
however,  as  we  shall  show  in  our  fourth  chapter,  that  the 
weak  letters  are  as  independent  and  significant  in  their  orig- 
inal forms  as  the  strong,  and  that  the  determinative  letters 
are  no  more  taken  from  the  latter  than  from  the  former. 
Again,  the  letter  3  alone  of  the  strong  consonants  is  put  in 
the  same  class  with  the  weak  letters  when  it  appears  as  the 
first  sound  in  roots.     But  the  true  view  of  the  matter  is  that 


20  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

the  weak  letters  may  be  used  as  true  predeterminatives 
along  with  the  strong  letters  5,  «J,  and  n,  since  each  of  these 
is  found  to  occur  at  the  beginning  of  secondary  roots  as  the 
modifying  element. 

The  views  of  Dr.  Delitzsch  as  to  phonological  representation 
should  also  be  subjected  to  some  criticism.  In  seeking  to 
prepare  a  scheme  of  correspondences  in  sounds  (pp.  82,  83), 
he  commits  the  error  of  neglecting  to  reduce  the  phonetic 
stock  of  both  systems  to  the  limits  that  obtained  in  the 
original  languages.  With  regard  to  Aryan  sounds,  indeed, 
he  confines  himself  to  those  which  have  been  accepted  by 
phonologists  without  dispute,  as  belonging  to  the  primitive 
idiom  ;  but  in  the  Semitic  family  he  takes  the  sounds  just  as 
they  stand,  only  grouping  together,  for  the  purpose  of  bring- 
ing out  a  set  of  equivalents  to  the  Aryan  sounds,  those  which 
are  organically  the  most  closely  allied,  without  investigating 
the  question  of  their  true  historical  relations.  For  example, 
he  assumes  that  the  Hebrew  s,  where  it  answers  to  the  Arabic 
^jo,  and  the  Ethiopic  9?  is  to  be  classed  with  i,  all  of  them 
representing  the  Aryan  d  and  dh;  while  the  Hebrew  ^,  an- 
swering to  the  Arabic  (jO,  and  the  Ethiopic  /\,  is  to  be 
grouped  with  d  ,  c: ,  and  iu ,  as  representing  in  common  the 
Aryan  s.  The  fact  is,  however,  that  the  Arabic  ^J^,  and  its 
Ethiopic  analogue  appear  to  have  been  developed  far  more 
frequently  from  a  radical  a:  than  from  a  radical  i.  The 
question  of  the  production  of  these  letters  is  surrounded  with 
great  obscurity,  but  this  much  is  plain.^  Further,  his  system 
divides  sharply  between  the  different  kinds  of  Semitic  gut- 
turals. Thus,  the  Hebrew  n,  with  its  Semitic  representatives, 
historically  corresponding,  as  he  claims,  with  the  Aryan  g-h, 
leads  one  division  of  sounds  :  while  N  and  »  with  their  rep- 
resentatives form  another,  answering  to  the  Aryan  spiritus 
lenis.     Here  H  is  thrown  out  altogether,  although  it  is  a 

^  Thus,  ^  as  the  first  letter  of  Ethiopic  roots  (see  Dillmann,  Lexicon  Aethiop. 
col.  1322  ff.),  appears  to  come  in  only  one  case  certainly  from  an  original  1, 
while  it  is  sometimes  actually  developed  from  a  primary  V3. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  21 

sound  at  least  as  fundamental  as  n.  To  be  consistent  he 
would  have  had  to  represent  it  also  by  the  Aryan  ^h,  which 
would  have  been  self-evidently  erroneous.  The  true  view  is 
that  all  the  Semitic  gutturals  (except  n  ,  which  is  common  to 
all  languages),  are  of  pure  native  origin,  and  are  capable  of 
an  organic  classification  which  precludes  the  possibility  of 
the  theory  we  have  criticised. 

That  these  errors  should  detract  in  many  cases  from  the 
value  of  the  comparisons  of  roots  made  by  Dr.  Delitzsch  was 
inevitable.  Moreover,  there  is  a  want  of  consistency  observ- 
able in  the  application  of  these  laws.  Thus,  in  comparing 
the  Heb.  tpr^"^^ ,  a  thin  board,  and  its  Arabic  hometyma,  with 
Gr.  (TKCLTr-Tto,  to  shave  off,  he  remarks  (p.  76),  that  "there 
is  nothing  surprising  in  the  agreement  of  the  aspirated 
h  with  the  Indogermanic  A;,"  though,  as  we  have  seen,  he  sets 
forth  the  same  n  sound  as  being  the  representative  of  the 
Aryan  gh.  In  the  choice  of  roots  for  comparison  it  is  unfor- 
tunate that  so  many  of  them,  perhaps  the  majority,  are  liable 
to  be  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  they  may  be  of  onoma- 
topoetic  origin,  and  therefore  more  likely  to  have  arisen  in- 
dependently in  the  separate  history  of  each  family.  In  spite 
of  these  and  minor  defects,  the  work  is  of  much  value  from 
its  stimulating  and  suggestive  character,  as  well  as  from  the 
actual  contributions  it  makes  to  linguistic  learning. 

Another  German  scholar,  J.  Grill,^  has  taken  up,  with 
much  acuteness  and  ingenuity,  the  question  of  the  relations 
of  the  two  families  from  the  stand-point  of  the  constitution 
of  their  roots.  Recognizing  the  divergence  not  merely  of 
Sectional  characteristics,  but  also  of  root-structure  in  the 
two  systems,  and  emphasizing  the  fact  that  in  the  Aryan 
root  the  vowel  is  coordinate  with  the  consonant,  and  that 
in  the  Semitic  it  is  subordinate,  he  seeks  to  harmonize  the 
two  by  carrying  the  view  back  to  a  hypothetical  pericrd  when 
a  so-called  "  Alpha-sprache  "  prevailed,  whose  peculiarity  was 

1  Zeitschrift  dcr  deutschen  morgcndlandischen  Gesellschaft,  Vol.  xxvii.  pp. 
425-460.  Ueber  das  Verhaltniss  der  indoj^ermanischen  uud  der  semitischen 
Sprachwurzeln  ;  ein  Beitray  zur  Physiologic  der  Sprache. 


22         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES, 

that  a  was  the  only  vowel  sound  employed  in  either.  This 
view  will  be  taken  up,  and  shown  to  be  improbable,  when  the 
same  problem  is  to  be  dealt  with  in  the  course  of  our  own 
investigation. 

In  addition  to  the  names  of  special  investigators  already 
cited,  general  mention  should  be  made  of  some  of  the 
greatest  lights  of  linguistic  science,  who  with  more  or  less 
confidence  favor  the  doctrine  of  the  possibility  of  a  real  re- 
lationship between  the  two  families,  though  they  have  not 
attempted  to  formulate  any  special  scheme  for  harmonizing 
their  divergences.  On  this  side  may  be  put  the  names  of 
Eugene  Burnouf,  Max  Miiller,  Pictet,  and  Steinthal.  The 
opinion  of  the  last-named  is  specially  valuable,  because  he 
has  discussed  ^  the  question  on  general  linguistic  principles 
more  thoroughly  than  any  other  of  those  who  have  not 
entered  into  an  analysis  of  vocabularies.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  probability,  and  even  the  possibility,  of  such  affinity 
is  rejected  upon  general  principles  by  an  influential,  and  per- 
haps at  present  the  dominant,  school  of  linguistic  philoso- 
phers, who  either  hold  to  the  theory  that  languages  of  differ- 
ent inflectional  types  are  necessarily  of  diverse  origin,  or  on 
general  anthropological  evidence  favor  the  doctrine  of  the 
diversity  of  human  species.  Among  the  most  pronounced  of 
the  opponents  of  any  scheme  of  reconciliation  are  Pott, 
Schleicher,  Renan,  Friedrich  Miiller,  and  Sayce.  Their 
views  will  necessarily  be  considered  in  the  next  chapter, 
when  we  come  to  take  up  more  particularly  the  question  of 
the  criteria  of  relationship. 

1  Zeitschrift  d.  deutschen  morgenland.  Gesellschaft,  xi.  396  S. 


CHAPTER    II. 


CRITERIA   OF   RELATIONSHIP. 

In  passing  now  from  tlie  more  critical  to  the  more  con- 
structive portion  of  our  Essay,  it  will  be  well  to  throw  some 
light  on  the  nature  of  the  task  before  us,  by  exhibiting  the 
more  obvious  points  of  contrast  between  the  two  families  of 
speech.^  Bringing  thus  into  view  the  distinguishing  features 
of  each  idiom,  we  shall  be  the  more  able  to  propound  the 
conditions  of  a  just  investigation,  and  to  establish  the  true 
criteria  of  evidence  as  to  their  relations. 

In  every  language,  or  group  of  languages,  there  are  three 
elements,  whose  peculiarities  determine  its  special  character, 
and  help  in  different  degrees  towards  its  classification. 
These  are,  its  sounds,  its  structural  principles,  and  the  con- 
tents of  its  vocabulary.  In  the  case  before  us  the  numerous 
points  of  dissimilarity  seem  at  first  sight  radical  and  indica- 
tive of  a  diverse  origin,  while  the  points  of  agreement  appear 
accidental  and  superficial. 

As  regards  the  first  element,  the  sounds  of  the  respective 
languages,  great  divergence  is  apparent  among  the  dentals, 
in  which  the  Semitic  family  lias  developed  a  strong  tendency 
to  multiply  sibilant  and  lisping  sounds,  and  a  wider  differ- 

1  Comp.  Ewald,  Ausfuhrliches  Lchrbiich  dcr  hebraischen  Sprache  (8th  cd.), 
1870,  p.  26  ff. ;  Eenan,  Histoire  gcneralc  dcs  langues  Seraitiqncs  (4th  ed.),  1863, 
p.  18  ff.,  454  ff. ;   WTiitney,  Lanjjuagc  and  the  Study  of  Language,  p.  300  ff. 

23 


24  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

ence  still  among  the  gutturals,  in  which  the  same  family  ex- 
hibits an  astonishing  variety  of  phonetic  expression. 

On  examining  the  roots  and  the  general  structure  of  the 
words,  we  are  at  once  struck  by  the  strange  and  unique  prin- 
ciples tliat  control  the  Semitic  dialects.  While  in  the  Aryan 
family,  roots  may  consist  of  a  consonant  and  a  vowel,  or 
of  two  or  more  consonants  accompanying  or  grouped  about  a 
vowel,  it  is  an  almost  invariable  Semitic  law,  that  the  roots 
of  nouns  and  verbs,  so  far  as  the  analysis  of  living  forms  can. 
testify,  are  based  upon  three  consonantal  sounds.  As  to 
Semitic  words  in  actual  speech,  we  see  exemplified  as  univer- 
sally the  peculiar  principle  that  the  vowels  are  used  to  express 
subordinate,  modified,  or  accessory  notions,  while  the  con- 
sonants, which  form  the  framework  of  the  word,  embody  its 
fundamental  idea.  Again,  this  family  has  only  to  a  small 
extent  the  habit  or  capacity  of  compounding  words,  a  circum- 
stance which  tended  to  multiply  the  number  of  its  roots, 
while  the  Aryan  languages,  having  developed  that  principle 
largely,  were  enabled  to  economize  their  original  stock. 
Further,  the  more  strictly  grammatical  features  of  the  two 
idioms  appear  to  be  no  less  radically  divergent.  Renan 
characterizes  the  Semitic  grammar  as  a  sort  of  architectural 
and  geometrical  structure,  as  contrasted  with  the  latitude 
and  flexibility  that  mark  the  inflections  and  syntax  of  Aryan 
speech.  In  the  Semitic  verb  there  is  a  great  variety  of  forms 
("  species,"  quasi  conjugations)  to  express  modifications  of 
its  general  notion,  which  represent  chiefly  simple  subjective 
conditions,  e.g.  causative,  declarative,  desiderative  forms  ; 
while  in  its  tenses,  which  are  few,  the  more  metaphysical 
idea  of  time  is  vague  and  indeterminate,  and  in  those  dialects 
which  in  a  more  reflective  stage  in  the  history  of  the  race, 
attained  to  greater  precision  in  expression,  could  only  be 
definitely  indicated  by  the  help  of  limiting  words.  In  the 
same  way  its  moods  arc  also  few  and  entirely  foreign  in  typi- 
cal structure  to  those  of  the  Aryan  languages.  With  regard 
to  its  noun,  the  prevailing  absence  of  case-inflections,  and 
the  formal  modification  before  a  limiting  noun,  called  the  con- 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         25 

struct  state,  are  among  the  more  obvious  peculiarities.  The 
objective  personal  suffixes  of  verbs,  and  the  possessive  per- 
sonal suffixes  of  nouns  are  further  important  characteristics 
of  the  Semitic  family. 

Within  the  sphere  of  the  lexicon,  also,  we  are  not  led,  im- 
mediately at  least,  to  unmistakable  marks  of  real  affinity. 
If  the  stock  of  roots  in  the  respective  vocabularies  was  origi- 
nally the  same,  the  evidence  of  this  does  not  appear  on  the 
surface. 

The  leading  differences  between  the  two  families  being 
thus  indicated,  the  character  of  the  problem  to  be  solved 
becomes  more  intelligible.  The  following  mode  of  procedure 
will  perhaps  be  the  most  natural  and  serviceable.  After  a 
glance  at  the  question  of  phonetic  phenomena,  the  grammat- 
ical features  of  the  respective  systems  will  be  taken  up  and 
it  will  be  considered  particularly  whether  there  is  a  possi- 
bility of  reconciling  the  divergences  outlined  above.  After 
estimating  the  results  of  this  inquiry  it  will  be  necessary  to 
decide  whether  any  other  criteria  have  a  right  to  be  admitted, 
and  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  show  that  the  comparison  of 
roots  alone  is  not  opposed  to  the  true  methods  and  principles 
of  linguistic  science.  These  discussions  will  form  the  sub- 
ject of  the  present  chapter.  It  will  then  be  proper  to  take 
up  the  two  systems  separately,  without  reference  to  the 
question  of  harmonizing  individual  words,  the  object  in  view 
being  the  obtaining  of  primary  forms  that  may  be  legitimately 
compared.  This  will  involve,  first,  a  reduction  of  the  sounds 
of  each  family  to  their  original  limits  and  expression,  and, 
second,  the  presentation  of  a  scheme  of  phonetic  representa- 
tion. The  treatment  of  this  subject  will  comprise  another 
chapter.  Then  it  will  be  necessary  to  treat  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  roots  of  the  respective  systems  according  to  the 
laws  that  prevail  in  each.  The  concluding  portion  of  the 
work  will  then  be  taken  up  with  the  comparison  of  roots, 
chosen  and  dealt  with  according  to  the  principles  that  are 
found  to  underlie  their  production  and  development. 

Taking  up  now  the  subject  of  the  criteria  of  relationship, 

5 


26         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

a  few  words  will  have  to  be  said  on  the  subject  of  the  sounds 
of  the  two  families.  As  they  stand,  they  do  not  accord,  in 
so  far  as  sounds  are  found  in  either  system  which  do  not 
appear  in  the  other.  The  question  arises  :  Are  we  to  regard 
these  differences  as  precluding  any  attempt  to  compare  the 
stock  of  roots  in  the  two  idioms  ?  Certainly  not.  The  vari- 
ants may  not  be  original.  Sounds  are  often  found  in  lan- 
guages in  their  modern  or  literary  form  which  did  not  exist 
in  their  early  condition ;  and  sounds  frequently  appear  in 
one  or  more  of  the  branches  of  a  linguistic  family  which  the 
parent  tongue  did  not  possess.  In  the  Aryan  family,  for  ex- 
ample, there  is  not  one  of  its  branches  which  does  not  con- 
tain sounds  foreign  to  the  primitive  speech,  from  which  all 
in  common  sprang.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  phonology  is 
not  a  primary  criterion  of  linguistic  relationship  at  all.  If, 
after  reducing  the  phonetic  stock  of  each  system  separately 
to  its  primary  range  of  sounds,  there  are  found  in  one  sys- 
tem some  which  do  not  appear  in  the  other,  this  fact  is  still 
not  decisive  of  original  diversity  of  idiom.  An  examination 
of  the  structure  or  of  the  verbal  forms  of  each  language  may 
prove  beyond  a  doubt  a  primitive  unity,  in  spite  of  the  pho- 
nological differences.  Thus  if  we  take  the  sounds  of  the 
Keltic  group,  as  they  are  found  to  have  exj^sted  in  the  origi- 
nal Keltic  language,  the  gutturals  which  belong  there  are  not 
represented  in  the  Indo-Eranic  idiom  ;  nevertheless  these  two 
branches  of  the  Aryan  family  undoubtedly  came  from  one 
common  stock.  So  the  cerebrals  in  Sanskrit  have  not  pre- 
vented the  harmonizing  of  that  language  with  the  dialects  of 
Greece.  It  appears,  then,  to  be  a  false  and  arbitrary  restric- 
tion which  those  scholars  make  who  would  prohibit  any 
attempts  to  harmonize  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  idioms,  on  the 
ground  that  the  phonology  of  the  two  shows  such  distinct 
features.^  It  is  not  well  to  lay  much  stress  on  such  differ- 
ences ;  for  that  would  be  to  appeal  to  an  unsound  source  of 

1  E.g.  Prof.  A.  H.  Saycc,  who  tells  us  in  his  Principles  of  Comparative  Phil- 
ology (1874),  p.  101  f.  ;  Introduction  to  the  Science  of  Language  (18S0),  ii.  p. 
176,  that  the  phonology  of  the  two  systems  opposes  the  idea  of  their  relationship. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         27 

comparison.  Nor  is  it  hard  to  account  for  the  notorious 
fact  of  important  changes  in  the  phonology  of  any  people. 
The  influence  of  climate,  food,  habits  of  life,  and  external 
conditions  in  general  upon  the  organs  of  speech,  is  both 
extensive  and  familiar;  and  i*:  is  easy  to  perceive  why,  through 
the  course  of  ages,  and  long  separation  under  different 
skies,  each  of  the  branches  of  one  original  language  has 
often  developed  sounds  quite  unknown  to  the  phonology  of 
the  other.  The  comparer  may  reduce  the  stock  of  sounds 
in  each  system  to  its  limits  as  they  appear  to  have  been 
fixed  in  the  original  languages.  If  the  sounds  are  then 
found  to  have  been  at  one  time  the  same  in  each,  this 
settles  nothing  decisively  as  to  the  original  relations  of  the 
systems  compared.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  sounds  are  found 
to  have  existed  from  the  earliest  accessible  period  in  either 
idiom  which  arc  not  found  in  the  other,  this  also  proves 
nothing  as  to  primitive  relationship.  It  is  the  business  of 
the  comparer,  in  either  case,  to  seek  for  laws  of  phonetic 
representation  by  the  comparison  of  roots,  not  directly  of 
sounds,  according  to  which  certain  sounds  in  the  one  system 
may  eventually  be  found  to  correspond  with  certain  sounds 
in  the  other  system.  These  sounds  thus  harmonized  may  be 
either  approximate  equivalents,  or  they  may  be  such  as 
analogy  shows  to  be  capable  of  representing  one  another 
through  permutation  in  human  speech.  The  main  point  to 
be  insisted  on  here  is,  that  sounds  are  not  at  all  a  primary 
criterion  of  linguistic  relationship.  It  is  sometimes  for- 
gotten or  unperceived  by  glottologists  that  sounds  are  com- 
pared with  one  another  only  as  they  become  the  outward 
form  in  which  ideas  are  clothed.  Significant  terms  are  the 
proper  material  of  comparison,  and  the  sounds  are  traced  out, 
classified,  and  compared  secondarily  according  to  the  history 
of  the  embodied  thoughts.  The  direct  and  independent 
comparison  of  sounds  is,  properly  speaking,  a  department 
of  physiology.  Those  who  put  forward  the  theory  just  criti- 
cised might  not  maintain  in  general  that  a  striking  diver- 
gence  in   the   phonology   of  any   two   systems   necessarily 


28  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

precludes  their  original  identity.  This  would  be  to  contradict 
history.  But  when  the  two  idioms  in  question  are  thought, 
on  other  grounds,  to  be  radically  separate,  the  phonological 
objection  is  as  natural  as  it  is  fallacious. 

We  must  now  turn  to  the  structural  peculiarities  of  the  two 
systems  of  speech.  Here  we  shall  have  to  regard  the  lan- 
guages just  as  they  appear  in  actual  use,  and  inquire  whether 
anything  can  be  inferred  as  to  their  early  condition.  In 
other  words,  we  must,  by  analyzing  and  comparing  the  verbal 
and  syntactical  forms,  endeavor  to  reduce  them  to  common 
primordial  principles.  In  our  previous  Article  we  had 
hinted  at  the  general  value  of  grammatical  comparison  in 
this  field  of  inquiry ;  but  here  it  will  be  necessary  to  con- 
sider the  question  more  at  large. 

The  conditions  for  this  investigation  are  botli  favorable 
and  unfavorable.  On  the  one  hand  we  find  the  two  groups 
based  upon  fully-developed  inflectional  systems.  There  is 
also  abundant  material,  in  the  form  of  a  large  literature  in 
both  idioms,  bequeathed  to  us  by  a  long  line  of  intellectual 
ancestors.  Moreover,  the  internal  laws  of  each  of  these 
types  of  human  expression  are  sufficiently  intelligible  ;  for 
the  principles  of  Aryan  speech  have  furnished  the  more 
familiar  elements  of  Comparative  Philology,  and  the  Semitic 
dialects,  in  their  simple  and  regular  structure,  reveal  easily 
the  process  through  which  their  vocables  are  built  up.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  have  this  disadvantage,  that  we  do 
not  possess  in  either  idiom  literary  remains  that  throw  any 
direct  light  upon  its  primitive  form.  Go  back  as  far  as  we 
may,  we  meet  with  only  full-grown  words,  in  whose  complex 
sounds  we  seem  to  hear  no  more  than  a  faint  echo  of  the 
simple  language  of  the  world's  childhood. 

Taking  up  now  the  word  and  the  sentence  as  the  two 
main  elements  of  human  speech,  and  regarding  the  structure 
of  both  as  tlie  surest  distinguishing  features  of  a  language 
or  linguistic  group,  the  inquiry  naturally  divides  itself  into 
two  branches.  First,  as  to  the  word,  we  may  assume  its 
special  character  to  be  exhibited  in  its  typical  form,  as  this 
is  associated  with  the  process  of  its  development  from  the 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARTTAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.       29 

root.  In  this  way,  e.g.  we  may  contrast  the  structure  of 
dictum  from  die  with  that  of  b^p?  from  bop ,  or  dicens,  dicentes 
with  buip ,  n-^bup ;  noting  such  matters  as  the  part  played  by 
the  vowels  in  each  set  of  words,  as  related  to  the  function 
of  the  consonants,  and  the  significance  of  the  prefix  or  affix 
as  entering  into  the  inflectional  system  of  each  type  of 
language.  Secondly,  we  have  to  compare  features  of 
syntax;  the  Semitic  sentence  is  placed  side  by  side  with 
the  Aryan,  and  the  endeavor  should  be  to  determine  whether 
the  existing  forms  can  be  reduced  to  a  common  system  of 
expression. 

Now,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  hitherto  such  inquiries 
as  these,  conducted,  as  they  have  been  in  some  cases,  most 
acutely  and  profoundly,  have  had  but  ill  success  so  far  as 
their  main  object  is  concerned.  The  result,  at  best,  has 
merely  added  to  other  presumptions  in  favor  of  an  organic 
relationship,  through  the  exhibition  of  a  few  analogies  in  the 
more  fundamental  structural  principles  of  the  word  and 
sentence,  which  have,  however,  arrayed  against  them  numer- 
ous divergences,  apparently  no  less  radical  and  essential. 
Our  more  definite  conclusions,  however,  must  be  reserved 
until  we  have  analyzed  the  evidence. 

If  we  consider  the  structure  of  Semitic  and  Aryan  voca- 
bles, we  find  the  following  to  be,  perhaps,  the  most  striking 
difference  :  in  the  latter  class  the  radical  portion  of  the 
word  is  almost  always  modified  by  additions  at  the  end, 
whether  in  the  base  forms  of  nouns  and  verbs,  or  in  the 
various  inflections  to  which  these  are  subject ;  while  in  the 
former  the  principle  of  augmentation  at  the  beginning  is 
also  followed,  as,  for  example,  in  the  formation  of  the 
species  (conjugations)  of  verbs,  of  the  future  (imperfect  or 
aorist)  tense,  and  of  a  large  portion  of  the  derivative  nouns. 
This  fact  is  seized  upon  by  Ewald,^  who  compares  it  with  the 

^  Abhandlung  iibcr  den  Zusammcnhang  dcs  Nordischen  (Tiirkischcn),  Mittel- 
landischen,  und  Koptischcn  Sprachstammcs  (aus  dem  Zehnten  Bande  dcr 
Abhandl.  dcr  konigl.  Gcsellschaft  dcr  Wisscnschaftcn  zu  Gottingen).  Gottin- 
gen,  1862.  The  full  title  of  Professor  Pott's  treatise,  in  which  it  was  severely 
criticized,  is  as  follows :    Anti-Kaolcn ;  oder  mythische  Vorstellungen  vona 


30     RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

predominance  which  the  Coptic  gives  to  prefixes  in  the  for- 
mation of  words,  and  infers  from  this,  among  other  eviden- 
ces, that  the  Semitic  holds  an  intermediate  position  between 
that  language  and  the  Indo-European.  He  ascribes  to  this 
strong  inclination  for  prefixes  in  the  Semitic  dialects  the 
absence  of  terminal  inflections  in  the  nouns,  or  of  cases, 
properly  so  called.^  Yet  from  the  circumstance  that  such 
elementary  inflections  as  those  that  express  person,  gender, 
and  number  are  formed  through  affixes,  he  assumes  this  to 
have  been  the  original  principle  of  formation.  On  this  he 
rests  one  of  his  pleas  for  the  acknowledgment  of  an  original 
affinity  with  the  Indo-European  stock.^  Not  a  very  strong 
case,  surely.  Yet  when  we  consider  the  intermediary  rela- 
tions which  the  Semitic  seems  to  bear  to  the  Aryan  and  the 
Coptic,  the  presumption  upon  this  ground  does  not  seem 
worthy  of  being  slighted  altogether. 

We  need,  however,  to  look  a  little  more  closely  into  the 
structure  of  such  forms  in  the  respective  types  of  language. 
When  we  examine  an  Aryan  word,  and  arrive  at  what  is 
considered  the  root,  we  find  that  the  latter  is  transferred  to  a 
a  derivative  or  to  an  inflected  form  without  internal  modifica- 
tion. In  all  cases,  certainly,  the  principle  is  clear  that  the 
parts  of  the  root  are  inseparable,  and  that  its  vowel  as  well  as 
consonantal  elements  must  enter  into  the  combination.  But 
the  Semitic  principle  is  totally  different.     The  consonants 

Ursprungeder  Volkcr  u.  Sprachen.  Nebst  Beurtheilung  der  zwei  sprachwissen- 
schaftlichen  Abhandlungen  Heinrich  von  Ewald's,  Lemgo  u.  Detmold,  1863, 
Although  Professor  Pott  made  an  effective  presentation  of  the  more  obvious 
difBculties  of  Ewald's  system  of  comparison,  neither  his  arguments  nor  ours 
have  any  tendency  to  lesson  the  merit  of  the  permanently  valuable  portion  of 
the  treatise,  in  which,  starting  from  fundamental  principles  common  to  both 
families  (which  appear  to  us  probable,  though  to  him  as  scientifically  estab- 
lished), he  has  traced  with  unsurpassed  penetration  and  ingenuity  the  structural 
development  of  the  two  idioms. 

1  The  accusative  and  genitive  in  Arabic,  and  the  accusative  in  Ethiopic  bear 
no  true  analogy  to  the  cases  of  like  appellation  in  the  Aryan  tongues.  On  the 
indefiniteness  of  the  like  endings  in  Assyrian,  see  Schrader,  Assyrisch-Babylon- 
ische  Kellinschriften,  p.  230  ff. 

^  Comp.  ^  107  c.  in  his  Ausf.  hebr.  Sprachlehre. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITPC  LANGUAGES.     31 

which  form  the  root  or  stem,  while  remaining  themselves 
unchanged  in  their  new  relation,  are  separable,  and  may 
admit  between  them  any  of  the  whole  stock  of  vowel  sounds. 
Each  of  them,  in  fact,  seems  to  l)e  the  centre  of  functional 
activity  for  itself  within  a  certain  range.  Now,  this  diver- 
gence from  the  Aryan  system  seems  to  be  even  more  radical 
than  would  be  the  assumed  primitive  correspondence  in 
formative  methods  whicii  we  have  just  considered.  It  seems 
to  be  nearer  the  sources  of  the  individual  life  in  each  system 
of  speech,  and  therefore  to  be  a  more  important  element  in 
determining  their  early  relations.  Thus  we  find  that  while 
from  one  plausible  analogy  we  would  be  led  to  hope  that 
a  bond  of  union  had  been  discovered,  we  are  warned  by  a 
more  searching  analysis  that  the  breach  is  wider  than  we 
had  thought.^ 

From  this  one  point  of  view,  therefore,  we  seem  compelled 
to  abandon  the  expectation  of  proving  a  structural  relation- 
ship, and  unless  stronger  evidence  is  forthcoming  from  other 

1  Ewald  does  not  seem  to  have  recognized  this  necessary  priority  of  more 
essential  to  more  formal  characteristics  in  these  languages.  He  thinks  that  the 
formative  elements  in  the  Semitic  family,  where  prefix  and  affix  were  both  em- 
ployed, largely  determined  the  principles  of  "  inner  mutation  in  the  roots " 
(Zweite  sprachw.  Abhandlung,  p.  64).  He  says  that  these  appendages,  press- 
ing equally  before  and  behind,  tended  at  last  to  force  their  way  into  the  body  of 
the  root,  thus  favoring  the  internal  play  of  the  vowels  as  modifying  elements. 
To  this,  he  adds,  the  original  divisibility  of  the  root  lent  its  influence.  We 
•would  suggest  that  the  relations  between  the  formal  appendages  and  the  inter- 
nal structure  of  the  word  are  as  follows  :  —  The  greater  freedom  in  the  location 
of  these  appendages  in  the  Semitic  words  is  a  secondary  influence,  due  to  the 
independent  existence  assigned  to  each  radical  of  the  triliteral  root,  so  that  not 
the  whole  body,  but  the  individual  members  decide  the  place  of  the  external 
additions.  Hence,  while  in  the  Aryan  languages  the  influence  of  analogy  would 
of  itself  be  sufficient  to  cause  these  appendages  to  appear  uniformly  at  the  place 
first  chosen,  namely  at  the  end,  the  same  tendency  could  not  be  equally  felt  in 
the  Semitic  vocables  ;  for  each  letter  would  assert  its  autonomy,  and  claim  its 
rightful  share  of  the  tributary  elements.  Naturally  the  force  of  the  middle 
radical  was  kept  in  abeyance  by  the  two  others,  one  on  each  border.  But  that 
this  was  due  merely  to  the  exigencies  of  its  position,  and  not  to  its  own  quies- 
cence, may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  the  most  highly  developed  of  the 
Semitic  tongues  —  Arabic  and  Ethiopic  —  this  letter  assumed  a  pow(;rful  modi- 
fying activity,  and  actually  instituted  a  new  and  complex  system  of  internal 
inflection  —  the  so-called  broken  plurals. 


C2      UELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

sources,  we  must  only  fall  back  upon  the  hope  of  establishing 
an  ante- inflectional  affinity. 

We  have  now  to  inquire  whether  there  is  anything  in  the 
syntactical  features  of  the  two  forms  of  speech  to  justify  us 
in  holding  to  a  radical  affinity  between  them.  This  task 
seems  even  less  promising  than  the  one  just  attempted. 
The  general  aspect  of  the  Semitic  mode  of  expression  seems 
to  have  nothing  whatever  in  common  with  the  typical 
character  of  an  Aryan  sentence.  They  are  as  divergent  as 
the  mental  characteristics  of  the  two  families  of  \^1iich  they 
are  the  expression.  The  thought  in  any  given  case  seems 
to  be  cast  in  entirely  different  moulds. ^  In  the  Semitic 
period  we  are  struck  with  the  absence  of  qualifying  and  sub- 
ordinate clauses  ;  its  parts  are  simply  co-ordinated.  There 
is  nothing  complex  in  its  structure  ;  all  is  simple  and  direct, 
both  in  the  construction  of  the  members  of  the  sentence  and 
in  the  arrangement  of  its  words.  The  specific  distinctions 
of  importance  are,  the  relative  positions  assigned  in  each  to  the 
subject  and  the  predicate,  the  modes  in  which  the  sentences 
are  united,  and  the  ways  in  which  they  express  the  relation 
of  dependent  words.  Now,  the  same  difficulty  meets  us  in 
this  comparison  as  that  which  we  encountered  in  considering 
the  structure  of  verbal  forms  :  as  far  back  as  we  are  able  to 
trace  the  two  idioms  we  find  that  they  have  preserved  essen- 
tially the  same  modes  of  expression.  Thus  it  is  character- 
istic of  the  Semitic  syntax,  throughout  its  history,  that  in 
the  ordinary,  direct,  simple  sentence  the  verb  precedes  and 
the  subject  follows ;  while  in  the  Aryan  languages  the  re- 
verse order  is  as  prevailingly  the  rule.  It  may  be  surmised 
that  the  actual  order  in  the  Semitic  idiom  was  not  the 
original  one,  and  that  there,  as  in  the  Aryan  sentence,  the 
subject,  as  being  the  leading  word,  was  in  earliest  times 
placed  first.  But  this  is  incapable  of  proof.  Ewald  insti- 
tutes a  subtle  parallel  ^  between   supposed  changes  in  the 

1  The  cardinal  distinctions  are  delicately  discriminated  by  Renan,  Histoire 
g^n^rale,  etc.,  p.  19  ff. 
^  Zweite  sprachw.  Abhandlung,  p.  57  ;  comp.  p.  28  f. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.      33 

verLal  and  in  the  syntactical  structure  of  the  Semitic  language. 
He  believes,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  formative  elements  in 
Semitic  words  were  originally  placed  at  the  end,  and  that 
the  principle  of  prefixing  them  was  of  later  origin.  He  then 
affirms  that  in  conformity  with  this  process  there  was  an 
early  but  gradual  change  in  the  order  of  the  parts  in  the 
sentence,  so  that  what  seems  to  us  to  be  the  natural  arrange- 
ment was  inverted. 1 

The  same  ill-success  seems  inevitable  in  examining  another 
leading  distinction.  The  mode  in  which  a  dependent  is 
joined  to  a  governing  noun  in  the  Semitic,  and  which  is  found 
in  all  its  dialects,  bears  no  analogy  to  anything  known  in 
pure  Aryan  grammar .^  That  the  first  of  the  nouns  should 
be  modified,  instead  of  the  limiting  one,  is  a  principle  essen- 
tially Semitic.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  origin  of  this 
construction  ;  whether  or  not  the  vowel  termination  of  the 
construct  state,  which  is  universal  in  Ethiopic,  and  has  sur 
vived  besides  in  archaic  forms  in  Hebrew ,3  was  the  original 
bond  of  union  between  the  words  so  related,  the  impossibility 
still  remains  of  bridging  over  the  linguistic  interval  between 
this  and  the  Aryan  usage,  according  to  which,  the  second  or 
limiting  noun  must  undergo  inflection,  or  be  governed  by  a 
preposition. 

With  regard  to  the  third  leading  distinction  in  the  sphere 
of  the  syntax,  we  think  that  the  simple  co-ordinated  structure 
of  the  Semitic  sentence  with  the  prevailing  use  of  merely 
copulative  particles,  is  not  so  radical  or  so  inherent  in  the 
system  as  to  furnish  even  the  external  conditions  of  linguis- 
tic comparison.     It  is  due,  as  it  appears  to  us,  almost  entirely 

1  That  the  Indo-European  order  is  the  most  natural  may  be  inferred  from 
such  primitive  types  of  language  as  the  Chinese.  See  Max  Miiller,  Science  of 
Language,  i.  p.  118. 

2  The  employment  of  a  similar  construction  in  modern  Persian,  and  in  Arme- 
nian, being  a  usage  borrowed  from  the  Semitic,  is  no  exception  to  this  rule, 
any  more  than  is  the  tendency  to  separate  the  letters  of  a  word  by  the  insertion 
of  a  vowel,  which  is  shown  sometimes  in  the  first-named  language,  and  has  the 
same  source. 

8  For  opinions  as  to  the  origin  of  this  termination,  see  Green,  Heb.  Gram 
^  198  a  ;  Ewald,  Ausf.  hebr.  Spl.  §  211  a. 


34     RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

to  the  intellectual  character  of  the  people  at  the  formative 
periods  of  their  language.  The  Semites,  as  a  race,  have  not 
been  given  to  habits  of  reflection  or  to  logical  reasoning, 
delighting  rather  in  the  contemplation  of  the  external  fea- 
tures of  the  objects  of  sense  and  the  more  lively  emotions 
of  the  soul.  Hence  the  absence  of  inferences,  of  close  defi- 
nitions, and  of  special  qualifications.  The  discursive  faculty 
was  but  little  employed,  and  required  no  special  instrument 
for  its  expression. 1  But  the  comparison  of  the  two  idioms  in 
this  sphere  would  soon  lead  us  from  the  study  of  the  lan- 
guage to  the  study  of  the  races  themselves,  and  take  us 
beyond  our  province. 

Having  thus  attempted  to  outline  a  system  of  structural 
comparison  between  the  two  families  of  speech,  it  remains 
for  us  to  sum  up  the  meagre,  yet  instructive,  results  of  our 
inquiry. 

1.  The  two  families  are  conspicuous  among  the  languages 
of  the  world,  through  the  possession  of  fully  developed  in- 
flectional systems,  as  distinguished  from  the  idioms  called 
agglutinative,  isolating,  polysynthetic,  and  partly  inflectional. 

^  The  early  inversion  of  the  natural  order  of  the  elements  of  the  simple  sen- 
tence may  have  contributed  its  influence  to  the  formation  of  Semitic  style,  aa 
Ewald  maintains  (Zweitc  sprachw.  Abh.,  p.  59),  but  probably  only  to  a  slight 
degree.  Pott  seems  to  be  in  error  when,  in  criticizing  Ewald,  he  says  (Anti- 
Kaulen,  p.  281),  that  the  brevity  and  uniformity  of  the  Semitic  sentence  are 
due  to  the  paucity  of  adaptable  conjunctions,  and  of  moods  and  tenses,  which 
would  subserve  a  like  end.  For,  if  wc  look  merely  at  Ethiopic,  a  Semitic  dia- 
lect which  does  possess  a  marvellous  capacity  for  the  expression  of  logical  and 
connected  thought,  we  see  that  it  possesses  those  grammatical  elements  to  the 
requisite  amount.  The  irsferencc  is  then  near  at  hand,  that,  at  the  time  of  its 
growth  into  a  distinct  language,  these  parts  of  speech  were  evolved  from  its 
quickened  resources,  in  order  to  serve  the  purposes  of  an  exceptionally  active 
intellectual  life  among  the  people  ;  there  being  also  no  doubt  that  much  mental 
activity  did  once  exist.  See  Dillmann,  Aethiop.  Gramm.,  p.  6  f  ;  Ewald,  Ausf. 
hebr.  Sprachlehrc,  p.  34  f  This  conclusion,  as  confirmed  to  a  certain  extent  by 
the  history  of  the  Arabic,  would  go  to  show  that  the  Semitic  type  of  expression 
was  conditioned  by  the  mental  antecedents  of  the  race,  and  not  by  an  inherent 
inadequacy  of  the  language.  Of  course,  when  the  cruder  dialects  became  old 
and  fixed,  they  lost  the  capacity  of  development,  and  when  employed  for  unac- 
customed purposes,  had  to  borrow  the  necessary  expressions  from  foreign 
idioms,  as  is  proved  from  the  history  of  Aramaic  and  Talmudic  Hebrew. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.      35 

2.  Without  considering  the  question  whether  what  are 
ordinarily  called  roots  in  the  Semitic  dialects  are  really 
ultimate  significant  elements,  it  is  plain  that  the  bases  of 
verbal  forms  in  the  two  families  arc  essentially  distinct  in 
their  structural  principles.  This  dissimilarity  is  marked  not 
simply  in  the  phenomenon  that  in  the  Semitic  idiom  they 
are  generally  composed  of  three  consonants,  l)ut  more  fun- 
damentally, in  the  independent  activity  assigned  to  each  of 
these  letters. 

3.  With  regard  to  the  formative  elements  of  living 
words,  we  saw  that  there  was  some  reason  to  believe  that 
in  the  most  essential,  and  presumaljlj  the  most  primitive, 
of  inflected  forms,  they  were  attached  at  the  end  of  the  roots, 
as  in  the  Aryan  languages.  This,  however,  does  not  furnish, 
by  itself,  a  very  strong  argument  in  favor  of  a  grammatical 
affinity. 

4.  The  syntactical  peculiarities  of  the  two  systems,  as 
would  naturally  be  expected,  do  not  yield  more  favorable 
results,  following,  as  they  do,  upon  structural  principles 
themselves  divergent. 

We  are  thus  left  without  any  direct  demonstration  of  re- 
lationship from  this  source  of  evidence.  The  question  then 
recurs  :  What,  if  any,  is  the  residuum  of  testimony,  from  a 
structural  comparison,  in  favor  of  the  theory  of  the  original 
unity  of  the  two  systems  ?  It  is  to  be  feared  that  no  answer, 
universally  satisfactory,  can  be  given.  In  some  minds  the 
common  possession  of  an  inflectional  system  would  of  itself 
create  a  strong  presumption  of  an  identity  of  origin.  And 
when  to  this  fact  is  added  what  has  been  alluded  to  with 
regard  to  the  intermediate  position  of  the  North  African 
family  of  languages,  whose  inflections  hardly  rise  to  the 
dignity  of  a  system,  but  betray,  when  they  do  exist,  a  marked 
resemblance  to  the  Semitic,  the  inference  seems  proper  that 
the  families  last  named  went  hand  in  hand  in  the  earliest 
stages  of  their  history,  and  after  their  separation  followed 
in  very  different  degrees  the  structural  impulses  which  all 
three  idioms  had  received  in  a  common  home.     But  apart 


36     RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

from  this,  and  on  general  linguistic  considerations,  it  does 
not  seem  likely  that  two  such  higlily  and  fully  developed 
systems  of  speech  would  have  originated  without  a  strong, 
even  though  very  early,  bond  of  relationship.  They  repre- 
sent a  supremely  great  achievement  of  the  human  mind, 
something  unique  in  the  history  of  men ;  and  one  is  led  to 
attribute  a  common  impulse  to  the  beginnings  of  each,  as  in 
the  contemplation  of  the  worship  of  the  synagogue  and  of 
the  cathedral  we  are  led  back  to  the  one  supreme  religious 
idea  that  the  world  has  known.  The  theory  of  an  original 
diversity  in  the  two  families  apj^ears,  in  fact,  to  raise  a  more 
formidable  difficulty  than  those  which  the  doctrine  of  their 
unity  occasions,  because  the  psychological  phenomenon  which 
it  would  imply  is  less  credible  than  the  assumption  of  a 
divergence  from  a  common  idiom,  which,  before  the  separa- 
tion, contained  the  germs  of  a  grammatical  system. 

Yet  this  kind  of  evidence  is  both  too  general  and  too  sub- 
jective to  command  universal  assent.  At  best  it  affords  a 
presumption,  and  not  a  demonstration.  Although,  therefore, 
we  think  that  the  two  families  of  speech  were  still  united 
when  the  first  manifestations  of  the  inflective  impulse  were 
felt,  yet,  as  we  have  very  little  scientific  proof  to  present, 
based  upon  grammatical  comparison,  it  is  only  left  to  us  to 
see  whether  there  is  not  another  kind  of  evidence  available 
in  the  inquiry. 

We  are  thus  led  to  compare  the  verbal  forms  possessed  by 
the  two  families,  and  thence  to  determine  whether  analogies 
between  separate  words  are  obtainable  in  sufficient  number 
to  justify  us  in  regarding  them  as  something  more  than 
mere  coincidences.  But  at  the  outset  we  are  confronted  by 
arguments  urged  against  the  admissibility  of  such  evidence 
by  those  who  hold  that  the  two  idioms  are  radically  distinct. 
It  will  be  necessary  to  test  the  validity  of  such  objections 
before  proceeding  further. 

We  are  first  met  with  the  general  plea  that,  as  grammatical 
features  are  the  proper  marks  of  linguistic  relationship,  it  is 
unscientific  as  well  as  futile  to  go  behind  them,  and  to  com- 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.      37 

pare  the  lexical  contents  of  the  two  groups.^  This  declara- 
tion is  sweeping  and  imperious.  Against  any  plausible 
coincidences  already  brought  forward  it  is  always  urged 
that  they  must  be  the  result  of  chance  or  of  onomatopoeia, 
or  of  some  subtle  intellectual  analogy  in  the  formative 
processes  of  early  speech.  Against  those  who  make  any 
systematic  attempt  to  compare  the  two  idioms  on  the  basis 
of  their  respective  vocabularies  it  is  maintained  that  they 
begin  at  the  wrong  end.  The  failure  of  Bopp  in  his  attempt 
to  compare  the  Indo-European  with  the  Caucasian  and  Malayo- 
Polynesian  families  of  speech  is  paraded  ^  as  a  proof  of  the 
exclusive  sufficiency  of  the  method  of  grammatical  compari- 
son, of  which  he  had  been  the  originator  and  expounder. 
Now,  before  considering  the  special  difficulties  raised  by  these 
theorists  in  the  way  of  adventurous  and  irreverent  investiga- 
tors, we  should  say  that  these  vehement  protests  against  an 
alleged  unscientific  method  are  themselves  not  at  all  in  the 
spirit  of  true  science,  inasmuch  as,  if  universally  heeded,  they 
would  stand  in  the  way  of  all  progress  in  the  further  com- 
parison of  languages.  A  stop  would  at  once  be  put  to  all 
efforts  to  co-ordinate  into  special  families  those  languages  of 
the  so-called  Turanian  group,  which  agree  only  in  the  agglu- 
tinative or  combinatory  character,  just  as  the  Aryan  and 
Semitic  families  agree  in  being  inflectional.  And  so  for  the 
the  classification  of  other  types  of  human  speech.  It  may 
also  be  assumed  that  if  the  same  spirit  had  been  dominant 
at  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  those  bold  but  happy 

*  So  Renan,  Friedrich  Miiller,  Sajce,  and  other  opponents  of  the  theory  of 
an  original  affinity. 

2  See  Friedrich  Miiller,  Grundriss  der  Sprachwissenschaft,  I.  Band  (Vienna, 
1876),  p.  58.  Comp.  Bcnfey,  Geschichte  dcr  Sprachwissenschaft  u.  der  orien- 
talischcn  Philologie  in  Dcutschland.  Miinchen,  1SG9,  p.  511  ff.  It  is  very  likely 
that  Bopp  was  inaccurate  in  many  of  his  combinations  with  the  above-mentioned 
languages  ;  but  on  this  general  question  of  the  admissibility  of  verbal  compari 
sons,  we  cannot  but  respect  very  highly  the  judgment  of  the  immortal  foundei 
of  Comparative  Philology.  Here,  as  in  his  Glossarium  Sanscritum  (within  the 
Aryan  family),  he  was  too  hasty  and  liberal  in  the  admission  of  analogies.  But 
this  was  due  to  his  method  in  practice,  and  not  necessarily  to  the  unsoundness 
of  his  theory,  into  whose  conditions  he  probably  saw  as  clearly  and  deeply  as 
any  dogmatic  obstructionist  of  the  prc&cat  hour. 


38     RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

generalizations  "without  which,  perhaps,  comparative  grammar 
itself  might  not  have  been  created,  would  have  been  de- 
nounced as  unscientific.  The  great  discoveries  within  the 
sphere  of  the  Indo-European  family  have  made  it  fashionable 
to  believe  that  glottology  has  unfolded  all  its  fundamental 
principles,  while  it  is  forgotten  that  only  small  districts  ol 
human  speech  have  been  explored  and  annexed  to  the  domain 
of  science.  The  reaction  against  the  old  lawless  methods  of 
comparison  which  now  prevails  is  no  doubt  wholesome  and 
just ;  but  it  is  a  question  whether  this  one  of  its  present 
forms  ought,  or  is  likely,  to  be  permanent. 

But,  more  particularly,  it  is  alleged  that  we  are  bound  to 
forego  any  attempt  to  assimilate  the  two  groups,  because  (it 
is  said)  science  has  established  the  fact  that  the  various 
types  of  speech  now  known  rest  upon  a  primitive  diversity 
of  origin  —  that  language  was  developed  at  first  from  num- 
berless dialects,  and  not  from  a  common  source.  Now  if 
this  dictum  were  conceded  to  be  indisputably  true,  it  would 
not  settle  the  question  at  issue  ;  for  we  should  next  have  to 
determine  what  constitutes  the  primitive  type  in  any  given 
case ;  in  other  words,  whether  the  two  inflectional  families 
of  the  world's  speech  may  not  have  arisen  from  one  original 
dialect.  Such  an  issue  is  not  necessarily  excluded  by  the 
conditions  of  the  supposed  fact  of  linguistic  history.  For 
the  limits  of  each  early  type  or  dialect  must  be  settled  in  one 
or  both  of  two  ways  :  by  appealing  either  to  the  evidence  of 
the  science  of  language,  or  to  that  of  comparative  ethnology. 
If  we  refer  to  the  former,  we  find  this  at  least,  that  these 
two  families  are  the  only  ones  that  have  a  fully  developed 
inflectional  system  ;  a  fact  suggestive  of  a  possible  primitive 
bond  between  them.  If  we  appeal  to  the  latter,  the  evidence 
is  decidedly  unfavorable  to  those  who  maintain  a  diversit} 
of  origin.  The  Semite  differs  but  little  physically  from  the 
Aryan,  and  resembles  the  European  more  than  the  latter  does 
a  Hindoo.  This  is  acknowledged  by  Renan,  one  of  the  most 
influential  of  the  class  of  writers  alluded  to,  who  admits  that 
the  current  distinction  is  based  chiefly  upon  language,  and 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.      89 

affirms  that,  viewed  from  the  physical  side,  the  Semite  and 
the  Indo-European  form  but  one  race.^  The  consideration 
that  tlie  two  systems  of  speech  togetlier  now  occupy  so  much 
of  the  earth's  surface  does  not  come  into  conflict  witli  the 
assumptions  of  the  theory  we  are  considering ;  as  though  the 
doctrine  necessarily  involved  a  certain  ratio  between  the 
primitive  extent  of  a  language  and  the  number  of  its  present 
speakers.  It  is  only  maintained  that  the  original  dialects  of 
mankind  were  numerous  and  diverse,  it  being  an  essential 
part  of  the  theory  that  but  comparatively  few  of  the  early 
stock  now  survive,  the  rest  having  been  eliminated  in  the 
struggle  for  existence,  It  should  also  be  remembered  that, 
so  far  as  we  can  judge,  the  primitive  Aryans  and  Semites 
must  have  comprised  only  a  relatively  small  portion  of  the 
earth's  inhabitants,  and  that  it  was  their  inherent  intellectual 
and  moral  superiority  that  secured  their  gradual  progress* 
and  their  survival  of  the  vast  civilizations  that  preceded 
them. 

Hence  we  see  that  no  real  advantage  would  be  lost  if  the 
theory  of  the  original  multiplicity  of  language  could  be 
proved.  Still,  as  it  might  seem  to  justify  a  presumption 
that  each  present  great  division  of  human  speech  had  a 
separate  beginning,  it  may  be  proper  to  say  a  few  words 
upon  the  subject  of  its  pretensions. 

Those  who  maintain  this  polygenetic  theo-ry  of  language 
are  usually  disbelievers  in  the  doctrine  of  the  common  origin 
of  mankind.  But  we  do  not  need  to  assume  that  they  are  pre- 
judiced to  any  extent,  by  their  views  upon  the  latter  question, 
formed  upon  other  grounds  than  the  results  of  linguistic 
research.  Some  eminent  linguistic  scholars  think  that  the 
final  decision  of  the  question  as  to  the  original  unity  or 
diversity  of  language  rests  with  physical  science.-  Others 
maintain  that  ethnology  and  the  science  of  language  should 
not  be  mixed  up  together.^    However  this  may  be,  we  have 

1  Dcl'oripnc  dcr  lanpage  (4th  cd.)-     Paris,  1864,  pp.  204,  208. 

2  E.g.  Bcnfcy,  Gcschichte  d.  Sprachwissenschaft  in  Deutschland,  p.  789  f, 
'  E.g.  Max  Miillcr,  Science  of  Language,  i.  p.  326  f. 


40      RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

now  to  consider  simply  the  worth  of  the  linguistic  proof 
which  the  advocates  of  the  theory  of  a  primitive  diversity  of 
dialects  have  to  offer.^ 

The  argument  upon  which  reliance  is  chiefly  placed  may 
be  stated  as  follows  :  —  Although  it  is  natural  to  the  human 
mind  to  seek  for  and  to  expect  unity  of  origin  in  all  forms 
of  existing  things,  the  facts  of  linguistic  history  point  us  to 
an  opposite  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  development  of 
language.  It  is  a  fact  that  widely-spread  idioms  owe  their 
predominance  to  the  influence  of  civilization ;  that  if  we 
turn  to  savage  tribes  (among  whom  are  certainly  to  be 
sought  traces  of  the  earliest  modes  of  Nature's  workings) ,  we 
find  an  endless  diversity  of  dialects,  each  village,  sometimes, 
having  an  idiom  of  its  own ;  that  if  we  go  back  to  the  ear- 
liest records  of  written  speech,  we  see  the  same  conditions 
exemplified,  as  in  ancient  compared  with  modern  Greece ; 
and  that  a  number  of  subordinate  considerations  (which  we 
cannot  here  adduce)  strengthen  and  illustrate  the  position 
thus  assumed.  Since,  therefore,  as  far  back  as  we  can  go 
in  the  history  of  language  we  meet  the  same  diversity  as  at 
present,  or  even  a  greater,  it  is  only  in  accordance  with  the 
methods  of  science  to  conclude  that  it  was  always  so.^ 

But  surely  it  is  only  scientific  to  draw  like  inferences 
from  like  conditions.  It  is  surely  a  perilous  assumption  to 
regard  the  conditions  of  the  formative  periods  of  language 
as  analogous  to  those  of  its  historical  progress  in  the  latest 
ages  of  the  earth.  Apart  from  the  peculiar  physical  and 
psychological  factors  that  must  have  entered  into  the  forma- 
tion of  early  speech  for  a  long  period,  there  is  one  possible 

1  The  theory  is  maintained  elaborately  by  Sayce,  Principles  of  Comp.  Phil- 
ology, chap,  iii.,  "  Idolum  of  primeval  centres  of  Language  " ;  Ilenan,  Orig.  du 
Lang.  chap.  viii. ;  Ilist.  gcne'rale  dcs  langues  Se'mitiqucs,  p.93ff. ;  cf.Pott.Un- 
gleichhcit  mcnschlicher  Rasscn  vom  sprachwiss.  Standpunkte,  p.201f.  Fr. 
Miillcr,  Grundriss  dor  Sprachwissenschaft,  p.  50  ff.  A  neat  statement  of  the 
general  position  is  given  by  Schleicher,  Compendium  d.  vcrgleich.  Grammtik 
d.  indogcrmanischcn  Sprachcn,  18G6,  p.  2f. 

2  On  the  origin  and  growth  of  dialectical  differences  in  contravention  of  the 
above  general  theory,  see  Whitney,  Language  and  the  Study  of  Language, 
p.  177  flF.,  and  in  American  Journal  of  Philology,  1880,  p.  341. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        41 

difference  of  vital  importance  which  is  assumed  not  to  have 
existed.  It  is  regarded  as  an  unquestionable  fact  that  lan- 
guage could  only  have  arisen  when  mankind  had  become 
very  numerous  and  scattered.  Passages  might  be  cited  from 
some  of  these  writers  ^  which  imply  a  contradiction  of  this 
position ;  though  it  is  clearly  the  corner-stone  of  their  whole 
theory.  The  assumption  must  be  either  that  man  sprang 
from  a  vast  number  of  beginnings,  so  that  mankind  origi- 
nally constituted  different  varieties  ;  or  that  language  is  not 
an  essential  faculty  of  man,  but  was  produced  at  a  late 
period.  When  these  doctrines  are  proved,  we  may  be  com- 
pelled to  accept  the  theory,  but  not  until  then. 

Let  us  see,  however,  what  is  the  evidence  really  af- 
forded by  the  conditions  of  savage  life.  If  we  take  a  gen- 
eral survey  of  any  large  country,  peopled  within  historical 
times  by  savage  tribes,  we  are  at  once  impressed  by  the 
great  multiplicity  of  dialects.  But  if  we  regard  these  tribes 
at  successive  periods  of  their  history,  we  do  not  find  that 
their  dialects  diminish  through  the  course  of  time,  but  that 
with  the  spread  of  population  they  themselves  increase. 
Hence,  if  we  cast  our  glance  backward  beyond  historical 
times,  we  can  see  that  there  must  once  have  been  in  that 
country  only,  at  most,  a  few  primordial  idioms.  This  surely 
follows,  unless  we  assume  that  the  communities  of  such  a 
country  were  originally  more  numerous  than  at  present.  Now 
let  us  look  at  the  matter  from  another  stand-point.  We  see 
that  in  large  districts,  or  even  in  a  whole  continent  (as  in 
North  America)  ,2  only  one  general  type  of  language  has  pre- 
vailed among  the  aborigines.  But  the  historical  diversity 
of  dialectical  expression  is  most  easily  explainable  from  the 
consideration  that  under  such  conditions  of  life  there  is 
always  an  impulse  to  unbounded  variety,  and  especially  that 
such  an  impulse  must  have  been  strongest  with  the  first 
uncertain  beginnings  of  speech.  The  inference  therefore 
seems  unvoidable,  that  within  such  a  habitat,  at  least,  the 

1  As  when  Renan  (Orij;:.  du  lang.  p.  182),  says  that  each  group  of  men  formed 
its  hmguage  upon  a  foundation  laid  "  par  une  tradition  ante'rieure." 
*  But  a  few  of  the  Central  American  dialects  are  said  to  be  of  the  isolating  type. 


42      RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

Babel  of  present  dialects  is  reducible  to  one  original  type. 
"We  are  not  now  attempting  to  show  that  all  the  varieties  of 
human  speech  may  be  brought  under  one  form  ;  we  only 
claim  that  the  same  conditions  which  could  bring  about  the 
development  of  the  American  (polysynthetic)  dialects  from 
one  primitive  idiom  might  also  have  educed  all  the  Aryan 
and  Semitic  fully  inflected  dialects  from  one  primordial 
centre.  This  possibility,  certainly,  is  in  no  danger  of  dis- 
proof from  a  theory  which  would  determine  the  conditions 
of  the  childhood  of  language  by  the  regulated  growth  and 
ample  scope  of  its  vigorous  youth,  and  can  discern  in  the 
mysterious  and  far-distant  past  nothing  but  a  copy  of  the 
familiar  phenomena  of  the  present.^ 

We  have  now  to  consider  the  difficulties  suggested  by  the 
advocates  of  another  theory,  capable  as  we  think  of  a  more 
scientific  defence.  We  are  brought  into  contact  with  it  in 
this  way.  When  it  is  admitted  that  the  grammatical  features 
of  the  two  forms  of  speech  cannot  be  assimilated,  and  we 
proceed  to  consider  the  possibility  of  a  comparison  on  the 
ground  of  verbal  analogies,  we  have  to  assume  that  before 
the  development  of  an  inflectional  system  there  was  a  more 
rudimentary  form  of  speech,  in  which  only  the  mere  roots 
were  employed,  or,  more  definitely,  in  which  there  was  no 
exemplification  of  the  categories  of  root,  stem,  and  base. 
The  nearest  approach  to  such  a  linguistic  type  is  the  Cliinese 
language,  whose  vocables  are  capable  of  being  used  for  any 

1  Many  of  the  subordinate  arguments  employed  by  these  scholars  involve  the 
same  fallacy.  Thus  Kenan  (Orig.  du  langage,  p.  1 77  ff.),  lays  great  stress  upon 
the  fact  that  the  terms  employed  by  early  tribes  to  designate  their  neighbors 
were  usually  derived  from  some  notion  implying  the  unintelligibleness  of  their 
language,  they  being  usually  styled  "  stammerers,"  "  dummies,"  or  some  other 
such  unsocial  designations.  He  cites  in  confirmation  such  words  as  the  Ger- 
man Walk  (Welsh),  the  Sanskrit  Mltccha  (supposed  to  be  cognate  with  the 
former),  the  Greek  Arjiossoi  and  Barharoi,  the  Abyssinian  Timtim.  He  then  pro- 
ceeds to  argue  that  language  must  have  been  originallij  divided  no  less  imj)assa- 
bly.  On  this  it  is  obvious  to  remark  that  we  do  not  know  whether  these  terms 
in  all  languages  did  not  arise  after  the  diverging  dialects  had  become  mutually 
unintelligible  from  familiar  causes.  Further,  many  of  the  cases  are  taken  from 
within  the  Aryan  family  ;  and  it  is  now  certain  that  there  was  once  a  time  when 
all  those  who  used  that  idiom  could  make  themselves  mutually  understood.  To 
this  opinion  Renan  himself  elsewhere  (op,  cit.  p.  49  fF.),  professes  his  adherence. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.      43 

of  the  parts  of  speech,  and  which  attains  a  perfectly  adequate 
capacity  of  expression,  merely  through  the  relative  position 
of  the  "words,  and  the  use  of  a  small  number  of  particles. 
But  there  are  some  who  would  forbid  us  to  assume  such  a 
hypothetical  Aryo-Semitic  type  of  language,  and  who  main- 
tain strenuously  that  it  is  both  improbable  and  unexampled ; 
that  it  has  no  ground  in  linguistic  philosophy,  and  no  anal- 
ogy in  the  history  of  speech.  It  is  maintained  by  them  that 
uo  language  has  ever  passed  from  an  isolating  stage  (as 
above  described)  into  an  agglutinative  or  combinatory,  and 
none  from  either  of  these  into  an  inflectional.  Probably  the 
strongest  assertion  of  this  dogma  has  been  made  by  E.  Renan 
and  A.  H.  Sayce,  in  their  works  already  cited.  The  question 
is  so  vitally  important  to  our  discussion,  that  it  demands  a 
serious,  though  necessarily  a  brief,  consideration.  We  shall 
therefore  present  the  best  evidence  we  can  in  favor  of  the 
theory  of  the  development  of  each  of  the  families  from  a 
more  primitive  type,  considering  the  opinions  and  objections 
of  opposing  theorists  as  they  may  occur  to  us  in  connection, 
with  different  points  in  our  argument. 

Our  theory  as  to  the  divarication  of  the  two  families  rests 
upon  the  doctrine  that  every  inflectional  language  must  have 
passed  through  a  simpler  combinatory  stage  (of  longer  or 
shorter  duration),  which  itself  arose  from  an  original  iso- 
lating type.  In  our  grammatical  comparison  of  the  two 
systems  we  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  discriminate  be- 
tween the  first  two  stages,  both  because  in  these  languages 
the  combinatory  period  appears  to  have  been  comparatively 
brief,  and  because  the  structural  divergences  seemed  so 
radical  as  to  exclude  the  probability  of  a  common  form  of 
speech  after  the  process  of  combination  had  once  begun.^ 
The  evidence  for  this  may  be  gathered  from  what  has  been 
said  of  the  modes  in  which  tlie  formative  elements  of  full- 
grown  words  are  attached  in  each  group,  as  well  as  of  the 
differences  in  their  internal  structure.  We  have  to  go  right 
back  to  the  most  simple  and   primitive  type  of  language, 

1  Comp.  Max  IMullcr,  Rede  Lecture  on  the  Stratification  of  Language,  Chips 
from  a  German  Workshop  (Eng.  ed.),  iv.  p.  102. 


44     RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

aiid  we  think  the  step  may  be  justified  demonstrably  by  proof 
that  each  system  has  been  developed  from  a  more  rudimentary 
condition.  As  to  the  psychological  causes  which  led  to  the 
adoption  of  the  more  complex  forms  of  expression,  we  admit 
that  they  are  to  a  large  extent  mysterious,  but  claim  that 
they  are  not  without  historical  exemplification.  As  to  the 
occasions  which  led  to  the  perpetuation  of  each  system,  after 
its  origin,  we  hold  that  they  are  easily  discoverable,  and  are 
being  constantly  repeated  in  the  history  of  human  speech. 

We  would  reniark,  first,  that  we  have  an  exhibition  of 
tendencies  in  many  languages  which  clearly  reveal  the  possi- 
bility of  such  development.  It  is  said,  however,  that  there 
is  no  instance  of  a  clear  transition  from  one  state  to  another. 
Certainly  there  is  not ;  nor  have  we  any  right  to  expect 
that,  after  the  forms  of  a  language  have  been  hardened 
through  the  course  of  ages,  they  could  be  changed  easily  and 
speedily.  We  do  not  claim,  however,  that  any  language  has 
made  this  decisive  transition  under  conditions  similar  to 
those  with  which  we  are  now  familiar.  But  it  is  manifest 
that  in  the  early  state  of  every  form  of  speech,  the  possibili- 
ties of  such  a  serious  change  were  immeasurably  greater. 
In  those  times  men  were  seeking  after  suitable  forms  of  ex- 
pression, not  having  at  hand  any  that  had  been  gradually 
worked  up  into  a  familiar  and  adequate  instrument  of 
thought.  One  class  of  them  would  attempt,  by  various  de- 
vices, to  perfect,  without  radical  change,  the  primitive 
rudimentary  type,  a  task  in  which  they  succeeded  admirably, 
as  we  learn  from  the  adaptability  of  the  Chinese  to  an  un- 
limited range  of  ideas.  Others  would  adopt  the  expedient 
of  combining  their  roots ;  and  this  idea  was  carried  out 
apparently  in  two  main  directions.  Among  the  founders  of 
the  so-called  agglutinative  languages,  predicative  roots  were 
modified  (so  far  as  we  can  determine)  generally  by  other 
nominal  and  verbal  forms  ;  while  the  pioneers  of  inflectional 
speech  made  as  decided  a  choice  of  demonstrative  or  pro- 
nominal roots  to  accomplish  a  similar  end.  In  the  former 
case,  since  both  elements  of  the  new  compound  stood  out 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.     45 

with  equal  prominence,  they  would  naturally  retain  their 
former  importance,  and  oppose  persistently  the  inevitable 
tendency  to  phonetic  corruption ;  while  in  the  latter  tho 
comparative  unimportance  of  the  determinative  elements 
would  subject  them  to  the  predominance  of  the  radical  por- 
tion, their  individuality  would,  after  a  time,  become  lost  in. 
the  consciousness  of  the  speakers,  and  phonetic  decay  having 
one  begun,  the  process  would  soon  extend  itself  to  the  whole 
body  of  the  word. 

So  much  for  the  general  process  by  which  these  complex 
systems  were  educed  from  the  primitive  condition  of  sim- 
plicity. The  force  which  operated  in  each  system  to  produce 
uniformity  of  structural  type  throughout  its  whole  extent 
must  have  been  chiefly  the  powerful  influence  of  analogy. 
How  potent  this  was  in  early  times  we  may  infer  from  its 
power  even  within  historical  periods,  as  we  learn  from  the 
development  of  varied  forms  in  such  idioms  as  the  Romanic 
languages,  and  most  conspicuously,  perhaps,  in  the  dialects, 
of  France.  And  we  maintain  that  the  possibility  of  a  tran- 
sition from  the  isolating  to  a  combinatory  stage  in  early 
ages,  ought  not  to  be  more  difficult  of  conception  than  the 
change  which  has  actually  taken  place  in  the  development 
of  the  modern  analytic  out  of  the  ancient  synthetic  languages. 
"We  must  remember  that  men  were  groping  after  more  com- 
plete and  satisfactory  modes  of  expression.  They  had  not 
yet  lost  the  spontaneity  of  primeval  speech,  and  with  an 
inherent,  almost  creative,  facility  they  could  achieve  without 
reflection  that  which,  to  us,  would  seem  to  involve  a  radical 
intellectual  change.  When  the  superior  fitness  of  the  new 
principle  of  formation  was  once  perceived,  the  whole  family 
in  which  the  change  began  would  assimilate  its  speech  with 
equal  readiness  to  the  forms  of  the  more  deserving  system. 
The  condition  of  things  was  very  different  after  these  ag- 
gressive principles  became  dominant.  Each  family,  having 
moulded  for  itself  a  suitable  instrument  of  thought,  then 
possessed  it.  It  did  not  seek  any  other,  since  it  did  not 
feel  the  need  of  it.     Hence,  we  do  not  find  in  the  acces- 


46      RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

sible  forms  of  language,  the  very  earliest  of  which  is  much 
later  than  the  period  we  are  describing  as  essential  to  the 
development  of  each  family  of  speech ,i  any  instance  of  a 
comi)lete  transition  from  one  type  to  another ;  nor  should 
we  expect  it.  The  faculty  of  language  is  drawn  upon  only 
at  need.  It  does  not  even  furnish  new  words,  unless  these 
are  required  for  the  expression  of  new  ideas ;  much  less 
should  we  look  for  the  creation  of  new  grammatical  cate- 
gories without  necessity.  Yet  we  do  find  languages,  some 
of  whose  features  seem  inexplicable  on  any  other  theory  than 
the  one  we  are  advocating.  We  have  such  idioms  as  the 
Finnish,  which  are  almost  as  much  inflectional  as  aggluti- 
native.^ We  have  that  most  puzzling  of  languages,  the  an- 
cient Egyptian,  about  which  scholars  hesitate  to  say  whether 
it  should  be  called  isolating,  agglutinative,  or  inflectional.* 
But  of  more  importance  than  these  facts  are  the  peculiarities 
of  some  of  the  languages  classed  as  isolating,  such  as  those 
of  Thibet  and  Siam,  which  partake  largely  of  the  com- 
binatory character,  while  the  Chinese  itself,  in  some  of  its 
forms,  exhibits  a  marked  tendency  in  the  same  direction. 
If  such  mutability  is  manifested  in  languages  checked  in 
growth  and  fixed  in  general  type  through  age,  tradition,  and 
usage,  what  must  have  been  the  capacity  of  radical  change 
inherent  in  the  earliest  forms  of  speech,  with  all  their  sim- 
plicity and  vagueness  ! 

Our  next  argument  is  based  upon  the  fact  that  an  exami- 

1  It  will  be  seen  from  what  has  been  said  that  we  consider  all  languages,  from 
isolating  to  inflectional,  to  have  undergone  this,  so  to  speak,  subjective  process 
of  development.  We  must  not  make  the  mistake  of  assuming  that  all  languages 
have  started  from  just  such  a  state  as  that  now  represented  by  the  Chinese. 
This  language  itself  must  have  passed  through  important  changes  in  modes  of 
expression  before  assuming  its  present  condition.  It  is  not  a  primeval  lan- 
guage, but  only  a  more  primitive  type  of  language  than  those  tamiliar  to  us. 
A  study  of  its  system  would  show  that  it  presents  the  result  of  a  considerable 
psychological  development. 

2  The  approximation  of  agglutinative  to  inflectional  idioms  is  of  secondary 
though  considerable  importance.  The  psychological  interval  between  these 
conditions  is  not  nearly  so  great  as  that  between  the  isolating  and  the  com 
binatory  stages. 

»  Comp.  Whitney,  p.  342  f. ;  Renan,  Histoire  g^n€rale,  p.  83  ff. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGQAGES.     47 

nation  of  fully-formed  words  in  Aryan  and  Semitic  speech 
attests  the  doctrine  that  they  are  ultimately  due  to  the 
accretion  of  originally  independent  forms.  The  determina- 
tive elements  added  to  the  roots  have  been  ascertained  in  a 
vast  number  of  cases,  and  shown  to  possess  a  significance  of 
their  own.  The  natural  assumption  is,  that  the  same  is  true 
of  all  the  original  compounds.  In  the  Semitic  family,  where 
the  process  of  analysis  is  peculiarly  easy,  this  conclusion 
may  almost  be  taken  for  granted.  But  the  advocates  of  the 
opposite  theory  prefer  to  consider  the  Aryan  languages, 
where,  confessedly,  there  is  much  more  that  is  obscure  in 
the  ultimate  constitution  of  some  of  the  more  primitive 
forms.  Even  with  regard  to  these,  however,  the  same  pre- 
sumption is  probable.  We  are  told,^  indeed,  that  as  far 
back  as  wc  can  trace  the  Aryan  languages  they  are  inflec- 
tional, and,  beyond  that,  they  must  be  remitted  to  the  prov- 
ince of  physical  science,  which,  as  we  are  told  with  great 
confidence,  could  only  prove  that  the  brain  of  the  earliest 
Aryan  was  capable  of  originating  no  other  type  of  language. 
But  surely  this  is  claiming  too  much.  Inductive  reasoning 
has  surely  something  to  offer  on  the  opposite  side.  "While 
explanations  of  forms  hitherto  obscure  are  continually  being 
made,  we  feel  a  strong  presumption  that  if  we  could  only 
penetrate  the  mist  through  which  the  opening  dawn  of 
Aryan  speech  is  faintly  discernible,  all  that  remains  myste- 
rious would  yet  be  brought  to  light.  If  these  elements  are 
always  significant,  it  would  be  certain  to  the  ordinary  mind 
that  they  were  once  used  independently — a  conclusion  which 
would  establish  our  theory. 

Such  a  conclusion,  it  may  be  said,  is  only  an  inference 
from  a  partial  analysis,  and  not  a  demonstration  based  upon 
the  working  of  a  universal  principle.  Even  if  this  were  to 
be  conceded,  there  is  another  way  of  considering  the  general 
question  which  leads  to  the  same  result.  It  may  be  shown 
that  the  opposite  theory  is  psychologically  inconceivable. 
The  formative  elements  were  originally  significant,  or  they 

1  Sayce,  Principles  of  Comparative  Philology,  p.  158. 


48     RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

■were  not.  If  they  were  significant,  they  were  previously 
independent  vocables.  If  they  were  not  significant,  how 
account  for  their  employment  as  determinative  symbols  in 
the  earliest  attempts  of  the  race  to  achieve  an  intelligible 
method  of  oral  communication  ?  Now,  it  is  maintained  (by 
Prof.  Sayce)  that  although  (as  proved)  later  forms  in  these 
languages  arose  through  the  attachment  of  significant  terms, 
or  fragments  of  these,  yet  the  example  of  inflection  in  the 
earliest  periods  was  set  in  the  creation  of  forms  which 
conveyed  in  one  single  word  both  the  fundamental  and  the 
modifying  idea,  the  latter  being  expressed  by  "  unmeaning 
terminations."  ^  Thereafter,  as  the  needs  of  the  languages 
demanded,  the  progress  would  be  easy  to  the  attachment  of 
significant  terms.  Which  of  these  two  theories  has  the 
greater  inherent  probability  may  appear  from  a  candid  pre- 
sentation of  the  assumptions  demanded  by  each.  According 
to  the  one  theory,  at  the  very  birth  of  these  languages,  when, 
as  we  are  bound  to  assume,  men  were  just  accomplishing 
the  task  of  giving  forth  in  sound  intelligible  signs  for  the 
objects  of  nature  and  the  simplest  qualities  and  actions,  we 
are  to  believe  that  they  expressed  the  various  relations  of 
these  by  attaching  to  the  phonetic  expression  of  the  root-idea 
(which  must  itself  have  been  held  on  precarious  probation) 
any  one  of  a  number  of  mere  grammatical  symbols,  these 
having  no  existence  save  in  such  combination.  It  is  natural 
to  suppose  that  the  earliest  efforts  of  speech  were,  at  best, 
not  very  easily  understood,  and  that  at  least  the  relations 
between  various  objects  would  at  first  have  to  be  indicated 
by  various  contrivances,  such  as  gestures  or  other  outward 
signs.  But  to  attempt  to  express  such  relations  by  drawing, 
on  occasion,  upon  a  number  of  arbitrary  (since  not  signifi- 
cant) sounds,  would  have  tended  very  much  to  discourage 
incipient  vocal  communication.      The  other  theory  assumes 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  I5K  The  words  are  evidently  equivalent  to  "suffixes  of  little 
meaning  "  (p.  145,  note).  The  use  of  the  latter  phrase  may  show  how  difficult 
it  is  to  conceive  of  the  growth  of  inflection  by  the  attachment  of  unmeaning 
sounds  to  the  root.  In  Prof.  Sayce's  Introduction  to  the  Science  of  Language, 
1880,  I.  p.  85,  cf.  p.  119,  a  similar  theory  of  Ludwig  (Agglutination  oder  Adap- 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.      49 

that  at  an  early  period,  though  not  the  earliest,  of  a  given 
inflectional  language,  terms  which  had  already  grown  familiar 
to  the  speakers,  gradually  came  to  have  their  various  rela- 
tions expressed  by  the  combination  with  them  of  other  words 
which  were  already  accepted  vocables  ;  that  at  first  those  of 
early  origin  and  of  most  frequent  usage,  such  as  demonstra- 
tive particles,  were  employed ;  that  thereafter,  as  the  circle 
of  ideas  widened,  more  special  expressions  came  into  use  ;  and 
that  in  course  of  time,  the  sense  of  the  independence  of  the 
two  elements  being  lost,  the  word  became  one  indivisible 
form  in  the  popular  consciousness.  The  choice  lies  between 
these  two  hypotheses,  and  onlythese  ;  and  hesitation  between 
them  does  not,  antecedently,  seem  possible. 

But  a  very  plausible  argument  is  presented,  to  the  effect 
that  the  farther  back  we  go  in  the  history  of  inflectional 
languages,  the  greater  complexity  of  structure  is  to  be 
found,  while  their  tendency  always  has  been,  and  still  is, 
to  greater  simplicity,  and  we  are  therefore  to  assume  that 
the  primary  types  of  expression  were  synthetic.  Here  again 
there  is  a  fallacy,  due  to  the  failure  to  pass  from  the  ob- 
served facts  of  accessible  forms  of  language  to  the  necessary 
conditions  of  its  early  development.  The  assertion  that  in- 
flectional languages  are  continually  becoming  more  analytic 
in  their  structure  is  based  upon  the  phenomena  of  idioms 
that  have  received  a  literary  cultivation,  analysis  being  the 
necessary  accompaniment  of  reflection,  and  the  result  of  a 
self-conscious  endeavor  to  attain  greater  simplicity  and  clear- 
ness of  expression.  Yet  it  may  readily  be  conceded  that 
back  to  a  very  remote  period  in  the  history  of  any  such  lan- 
guage the  assumed  conditions  did  exist.  But  the  argument 
is  valid  only  against  any  who  might  claim  that  throughout 
the  progress  of  such  an  idiom  a  tendency  to  greater  com- 
plexity prevailed.  This,  however,  is  not  the  position  main- 
tained here  at  all ;   for  a  multiplicity  of  complex  forms  is 

tation,  1873),  is  cited  and  supported  by  the  researches  of  M.  Bergaigne  into  the 
nature  of  the  Aryan  case  suffixes.  In  this  instance  he  acknowledges  more  fully 
the  difficulties  attending  both  theories. 


50  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

just  what  we  would  expect  to  have  happened  after  the  combi- 
natory impulse  began  to  manifest  itself,  in  accordance  with 
what  we  know  of  the  general  diversity  and  confusion  of  early 
efforts  at  language-making.  Afterwards  when  any  language 
became  fixed  in  its  structural  type,  and  was  much  employed 
in  the  expression  of  manifold  thought,  the  simplifying  process 
was  equally  inevitable. 

A  more  particular  form  of  the  same  general  objection  to 
the  root-theory  has  yet  to  be  considered,  and  in  it  aii  extreme 
seems  to  have  been  reached  in  the  way  of  crude  philosophizing. 
We  are  told  that  language  begins  with  sentences,  not  with 
words  ;  that  an  idea  cannot  be  communicated  by  the  use  of 
single  words,  and  that  even  in  the  most  primitive  utterances 
of  men  such  single  terms  had  to  be  eked  out  by  gestures  or 
other  signs  so  as  to  convey  the  ideas  intended  to  be  ex- 
pressed ;  that  the  form  in  which  such  utterances  were  made 
characterized  each  linguistic  type,  and  was  perpetuated  un- 
changeably in  the  development  of  the  language  ;  that  the 
sentence  is  the  unit  of  significant  speech,  and  it  is  therefore 
evident  that  all  individual  words  must  once  have  been  sen- 
tences ;  that  the  student  of  language  therefore  cannot  deal  with 
words  apart  from  sentences.^  Many  considerations  oppose 
this  reasoning,  any  one  of  which  is  fatal  to  its  sweeping  con- 
clusions. In  the  first  place,  even  if  it  is  admitted  that 
spoken  language  can  never  consist  of  the  use  of  a  mere 
word  without  some  form  of  predication  concerning  it,  it  does 
not  follow  that  such  a  form  is  permanent  from  the  first,  and 
becomes  crystallized  about  the  word  with  its  earliest  utter- 
ance. On  the  contrary,  since  we  know  that  the  first  means 
whereby  men  conveyed  their  ideas  about  objects,  or  the 
qualities  of  objects,  must  have  been  the  employment  of 
some  kind  of  outward  sign  apart  from  the  words  that  ex- 
pressed those  objects  or  qualities,  these  mechanical  symbols 
of  gesture,  tone,  and  so  forth,  must  necessarily  have  varied 
with  the  habits  and  genius  of  each  community,  while  the 
names  of  the  objects  or  qualities,  once  settled  upon,  would 
1  Sayce,  Introduction  to  the  Science  of  Language,  VoL  i.  p.  111-116. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         51 

become  more  permanently  held  in  their  essential  phonetic 
representation.  Such  words,  being  conceptual,  were  per- 
petuated, their  permanence  being  derived  from  the  intel- 
lectual judgment  that  established  them.  The  supplementary 
elements  in  tlie  primitive  utterance  varied  with  each  group  of 
speakers  or  each  community  that  helped  to  popularize  and 
extend  the  much  needed  vocables ;  these  demonstrative  ex- 
pressions being  spontaneous,  natural,  and  easily  understood, 
were  not  permanent  just  because  they  were  variable.  It  is 
unnecessary  to  point  out  how  the  reasoning  employed  is  out 
of  harmony  with  what  is  observed  of  all  organization  either 
in  nature  or  in  human  history.  The  elements  of  the  assumed 
"  sentences  "  are  all  before  us,  each  of  them  a  separate 
entity ;  but  the  theory  denies  that  there  was  any  synthesis 
in  their  combination.  It  is  as  unphilosophical  to  assert  that 
words  could  never  have  had  an  independent  origin  and  history 
because  in  actual  speech  they  are  always  found  organized 
into  sentences,  as  it  would  be  to  maintain  that  oxygen  or 
nitrogen  never  had  a  separate  existence  because  they  are 
regularly  found  in  definite  combinations.  The  main  fal- 
lacy, however,  lies  in  the  abuse  of  the  term"  sentence,"  as 
a  grammatical  category,  in  its  application  to  the  simple  utter- 
ances of  the  makers  of  language.  The  stereotyped  forms  of 
fully  developed  speech  could  not  possibly  have  been  repre- 
sented in  such  primitive  expressions.  If  it  is  said  that  every 
utterance  implies  a  sentence ;  we  deny  the  statement,  if  the 
implication  is  that  every  utterance  is  capable  of  a  formal 
grammatical  analysis ;  for  an  intelligible  expression  can  be 
made  by  the  use  of  but  a  single  word.  When  it  is  said  that 
every  such  word  would  need  to  be  accompanied  by  signs  to 
indicate  its  bearing  or  special  use,  we  reply  that  such  signs 
as  gesture,  tone,  and  facial  expression  are  not  language  at 
all,  that  is,  not  human  speech ;  and  with  anything  beyond 
this  science  has  nothing  to  do.^ 

'  Even  taking  these  theorists  on  their  own  ground  we  can  find  much  that 
proves  the  root-theory  as  against  the  sentence-theory.  Thus  we  know  that  in  a 
simple  sentence  the  copula  is  of  late  origin  in  all  languages,  being  usually  an 


I 


52  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

These  observations,  which  are  all  we  have  space  for  here, 
will  show  how  little  reason  there  is  for  accepting  the  dicta 
of  Renan  ^  that "  languages  issue  ready  made  from  the  mould 
of  the  human  mind,"  and  that  linguistic"  families  appear  as 
established  types  once  for  all." 

adaptation  of  the  late  metaphysical  conception,  to  be  or  exist ;  and  that  in  such 
widely  separated  idioms  as  Hebrew  and  Sanskrit,  as  well  as  in  many  others,  in 
such  expressions  as  "  this  is  a  tree,"  the  copula  was  primarily  not  employed,  the 
form  being,  "  this  a  tree."  Such  an  example  shows  how  near  even  highly  de- 
veloped tongues  still  lay  to  the  source  of  their  individual  life  ;  and  when  we  add 
to  these  considerations  the  fact  of  the  ambiguity  in  the  use  of  demonstrative 
pronouns  in  the  early  literary  stages  of  such  languages,  the  same  example  points 
us  almost  directly  to  a  "  sentence  "  and  a  word  in  one. 
1  Origine  du  langage,  pp.  99,  116. 


CHAPTER    III. 


COIVIPARATIVE    PHONOLOGY. 

In  dealing  with  Aryan  and  Semitic  sounds  as  they  come 
up  for  comparison,  three  questions  present  themselves  in  the 
following  order.  The  first  is  :  Does  a  marked  difference  in 
the  current  phonetic  stock  of  the  two  families  properly  pre- 
clude all  discussion  of  their  ultimate  identity  ?  The  second 
is  :  "Will  a  fair  examination  of  the  sounds  of  the  two  idioms 
result  in  showing  that  the  dissimilar  elements  have  arisen  in 
their  respective  systems  from  more  primary  sounds  ?  The 
third,  which  is  entirely  distinct  from  the  second,  is  :  How  do 
the  Aryan  and  Semitic  sounds  represent  one  another  in  the 
accessible  forms  of  hypothetical  Aryo-Semitic  speech  ?  The 
first  of  these  questions  was  answered  in  the  last  chapter, 
where  it  was  shown  that  sounds  are  not  a  primary  criterion 
of  relationship.  The  answer  to  the  other  two  questions  will 
be  given  in  the  present  chapter. 

Our  first  task  will  accordingly  be  to  take  up  the  contents  of 
the  Aryan  and  Semitic  alphabets,  eliminate  the  sounds  which 
may  be  proved  to  be  secondary,  and  thus  reduce  them  inde- 
pendently to  their  primary  limits.  Two  practical  results  will 
thus  be  gained :  we  shall  be  able  to  determine  what  were  the 
Proto-Aryan  and  Proto-Semitic  sounds  in  which  their  earli- 
est vocables  were  clothed ;  and  we  shall  be  able  to  reduce  to 
its  primary  form  any  root  that  may  come  up  for  comparison 
containing  sounds  that  are  proved  to  be  secondary.  Of 
course  the  present  discussion  has  nothing  to  do  with  bring- 

68 


54  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

ing  together  the  sounds  of  the  two  systems,  and  detcrmhiing 
whether  they  corresponded  to  one  another  in  actual  Proto- 
Aryan  and  Proto-Semitic  speech.  Tliat  is  a  question  to  be 
settled  apart.  At  present  we  have  to  take  up  the  phonetic 
repertory  of  each  family  and  reduce  it  to  its  primary  limits 
irrespectively  of  other  considerations.  In  this  endeavor  the 
chief  work  will  have  to  be  done  in  the  Semitic  department. 
Aryan  phonology  has  progressed  so  rapidly  and  surely,  in 
keeping  with  Aryan  etymology,  that  although  there  is  still 
dispute  on  some  points  of  minor  importance  there  will  be  no 
great  difficulty  in  presenting  a  correct  working  scheme  of 
ultimate  Aryan  sounds.  It  is  hoped  that  the  attempt  will  be 
equally  successful  with  the  Semitic  alphabet. 

The  first  class  of  sounds  to  claim  our  attention  is  the  gut- 
turals. The  development  of  these  in  the  Semitic  languages 
especially  is  remarkable,  particularly  in  Arabic  and  Etliiopic. 
That  these  were  not  all  employed  from  the  very  earliest 
stages  of  Semitic  speech,  but  were  gradually  produced  in 
later  times,  can  be  made  to  appear  at  least  very  probable 
from  the  following  considerations.  In  the  first  place  we 
have  the  notorious  fact  that  when  we  compare  together  roots 
which  were  undoubtedly  Proto-Semitic,  agreeing  in  other 
sounds  but  differing  in  their  possessing  different  gutturals, 
an  agreement  or  resemblance  of  meaning  is  shown  in  an  im- 
mense number  of  cases.  This  seems  to  point  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  many  of  these  forms  were  modifications  of  these 
synonymes  through  a  variation  of  the  guttural  elements,  a 
process  which  throws  light  on  the  production  of  such  sounds 
in  earliest  Semitic  times.  Again  we  have  the  analogies  pre- 
sented by  other  languages.  Thus  within  the  Aryan  family, 
which  started  with  no  true  guttural,  these  sounds  have  been 
variously  and  sometimes  strongly  developed,  notably  in  the 
Keltic  and  Armenian  branches.  So  also  in  some  of  the 
American  dialects.^  In  the  next  place,  we  must  remember 
that  in  tlie  growth  of  Semitic  speech  with  its  peculiar  structure, 

1  Prof.  Haldcman  in  Proceedings  of  the  American  Oriental  Society,  Oct.  1874 
(Journal,  Vol.  x.  p.  ciii). 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  55 

it  was  inevitable  in  attempting  to  express  the  great  variety 
of  notions  bred  in  the  minds  of  an  intellectual  people,  that 
they  shou'd  employ  a  greater  variety  of  sounds  than  those 
with  which  they  at  first  started.  There  was  a  two-fold  inner 
necessity  for  this.  First,  the  vowels  could  not  be  used  in 
forming  now  roots  among  the  Semites,  but  only  in  form- 
ing derivatives,  or  in  expressing  different  aspects  of  the 
root-idea.  Secondly,  there  was  no  compounding  of  words 
with  prepositions  or  other  modifying  terms  to  express  new 
relations  or  kindred  notions.  When  the  need  for  various 
expression  was  felt,  resort  must  have  been  had  unconsciously 
to  the  stock  of  consonants,  from  whose  fundamentally  distinct 
sounds  there  gradually  arose  variations,  at  first,  perhaps, 
slightly,  and  finally  quite  strongly  marked.  Other  causes  no 
doul)t  conspired  with  these  in  each  case  of  differentiation, 
and  we  think  it  probable  that  the  strongest  gutturals,  such 
as  are  met  with  both  within  and  without  the  Semitic  family, 
were  produced  by  those  general  influences,  such  as  food, 
climate,  and  mode  of  life,  which  led  to  their  development  in. 
the  Armenian  and  both  of  the  great  Keltic  dialects.  But  we 
think  that  these  finer  distinctions,  peculiar  to  the  Semitic, 
such  as  the  Arabic  _  and   c?  as  well  as  some  of  the  non- 

guttural  variants,  were  due  not  only  to  such  occasions,  but 
to  those  others  which  are  peculiar  to  Semitic  speech.  Hence, 
as  it  appears  to  us,  the  immense  range  of  consonantal  expres- 
sion shown  in  the  Semitic  idiom,  exceeding  anything  in  the 
pure  Aryan  languages,  even  the  Sanskrit,^  some  of  whose 
sounds  (the  "  cerebrals  ")  are  possibly  borrowed,  and  others 
mere  euphonic  variants.  But,  in  the  third  place,  however 
we  may  account  for  the  variety  of  consonants,  the  fact  of  the 
gradual  development  of  the  different  sounds  does  not  rest 
entirely  upon  theory.  We  can  trace  the  process  of  develop- 
ment in  the  later  stages  of  development.  The  Ai-abic  a 
is  not  found  as  a  fixed  independent   sound  in  the  other 

1  Max  Miiller's  Science  of  Language  (Am.  ed.),  p.  180,  gives  the  number  of 
current  Sanskrit  consonants  as  thirty-seven. 


56  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

dialects,  not-  even  in  Ethiopic,  which  went  hand  in  hand  with 
it  so  long  after  the  other  dialects  left  the  parent  stock.  We 
can  see  a  tendency  to  its  use  in  Hebrew,  or  rather  a  pi.-onun- 
ciation  of  the  y  somewhat  resembling  it,  since  we  fiindi  the  s 
sometimes  represented  by  the  Greek  7  in  proper  names  in 
the  Septuagint,  even  in  the  middle  of  a  word  when  it  is 
usually  not  represented  at  all  (e.g.  peyfui  for  nn:>-i,  Gen.  x.  7). 
But  this  only  shows  how  it  was  possible  for  the  Arabs  to 
develop  an  occasional  into  a  fixed  sound, ^  and  so  throws  light 
upon  the  subject  of  the  origin  of  the  Semitic  gutturals  gen- 
erally. In  Hebrew  one  character  stood  for  both  sounds, 
and  therefore  we  must  assume  that  the  divergence  was  of 
later  origin  than  the  invention  of  their  alphabet.  So  with  the 
n  in  Hebrew  and  its  representatives  in  the  northern  Semitic 
dialects.  The  Arabic  and  Ethiopic  made  of  this  letter,  which 
had  a  fluctuating,  uncertain  character  in  Hebrew,  two  dis- 
tinct unvarying  sounds,  for  which  they  devised  special  char- 
acters,        .  ;   ^,  -t.     Looking  at  this  tendency  to  multipli- 

cation  of  guttural  sounds,  which  is  so  unmistakable  in  those 
languages  which  had  the  best  scope  for  the  development  of 
their  inherent  capabilities  —  a  tendency  whose  operations 
can  be  so  easily  traced  ;  and  looking,  on  the  other  hand,  at 
the  liability  to  the  reduction  of  those  gutturals  to  the  simple 
smooth  and  rough  breathings  which  we  find  essentially  in  all 
languages,  we  naturally  conclude  that  they  were  all  gradually 
developed  out  of  those  primary  sounds.  That  this  is  so  is 
reduced  almost  to  a  certainty  when  we  attempt  to  utter 
those  sounds,  and  find  that  they  are  all  distinctly  rela,ted  in 
two  orders  which  have  as  close  a  relation  to  one  another  as 
d  bears  to  t.     The  Arabic  c  and  a  (=^^  are  developed  from 

1  Ayin,  the  most  peculiar  of  the  gutturals,  seems  to  have  had  a  tendency  in 
two  opposite  directions  after  its  ori<Tination,  more  marked  than  in  any  other  of 
its  class.  The  tendency  to  greater  strength  and  variety  we  see  exemplified  best 
in  Arabic.  The  inclination  to  weakness  and  assimilation  we  see  in  the  later 
history  of  all  thepther  dialects,  while  in  Assyrian  it  is  only  and  always  a  mere 
vowel.  In  the  Samaritan,  Galilean,  and  Talmudic  dialects,  and  in  the  later 
Phenician  s  took  the  place  of  9.  Later  Ethiopic  and  Mandaite  retained  only 
the  smooth  and  rough  breathings. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         57 

I  (=:N),  while        and    •    are  developed  from  »  (=f^)  ;  the 

former  order  being  just  the  sonants  of  the  latter  respectively. 
For  the  sounds  in  each  order  essentially  the  same  organs  are 
employed.  The  possible  modifications  in  position  may  be 
illustrated  by  the  use  of  the  German  ch,  or  better  still  by  the 
Welsh  ch,  as  compared  with  the  ordinary  h.  The  peculiarity 
of  the  Semitic  pronunciation  is,  that  it  has  brought  out  the 
c  with  its  surd       more  distinctly  than  any  other  language ; 

though,  as  Dr.  Merkel  tells   us,^  an  approach  to  the  c  or 

»  is  heard  in  German  speech  under  certain  circumstances. 
A  more  minute  physiological  analysis  of  these  sounds  than 
we  can  give  here  ^  would  only  confirm  what  we  have  said  of 
the  easy  gradations  of  the  Semitic  gutturals,  and  of  their 
development  from  the  simple  breathings. 

From  all  this  it  appears  not  only  that  the  variety  and 
peculiarity  of  these  Semitic  sounds  offer  no  bar  to  a  com- 
parison with  other  linguistic  systems,  but  also  that  we  have 
arrived  at  the  same  phonological  level  as  that  upon  which 
the  primitive  Aryan  breaths  are  found  to  stand.  Let  us 
look  at  the  Aryan  side  of  the  equation  for  a  moment.  We 
find  here  that,  so  far  as  we  can  determine,  they  had  only  the 
spiritus  lenis,^  not  the  spiritus  asper.  This,  however,  does 
not  prevent  a  final  equalization  of  the  sounds  in  question ; 
for  the  history  of  speech  shows  how  soon  the  h  was  developed, 
as  phonology  shows  how  easily  it  arises  and  falls  into  disuse.* 
^is  really  the  surd  of  -'  (=^).  If  the  organs  remain  in 
the  position  which  they  assume  upon  the  pronunciation  of 
any  vowel  at  the  beginning  of  a  word,  and  if  then  we  blow 

1  C.  L.  Merkel's  Physiologie  der  menschlichen  Sprache  (Leipzig,  1866),  p.  74. 

2  The  reader  is  referred  to  Max  Miiller's  Science  of  Language  (Am.  ed.),  Vol. 
ii.  p.  148,  and  to  the  works  alluded  to  in  that  chapter,  particularly  to  those  of 
Lepsius,  Briicke,  and  Czermak ;  also  to  the  thorough  and  very  able  work  of 
Merkel  above  cited. 

'  Schleicher's  Compendium  d.  vergl.  Grammatik  d.  indogerm.  Sprachen,  4. 
Auflage  (Weimar,  1876),  p.  11. 

*  See  the  sounds  of  Zend,  Old-Italian,  Greek,  Old-Irish,  etc.,  in  Schleicher's 
Compendium  ;  and  compare  the  phenomena  of  the  so-called  Cockney  speech,  as 
well  as  the  use  or  disuse  of  A  in  Modern  French. 


58  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

instead  of  breathing,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  make  a 
surd  instead  of  a  sonant  sound,  we  shall  have  a  light  spiritus 
asper  instead  of  the  spiritus  lenis.^  We  have  no  doubt  that 
the  same  thing  was  done  by  the  Semites  as  by  the  Aryans, 
and  that  from  the  fundamental  smooth  breathing  they  also 
differentiated  their  h  sound.  From  these,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  surd  and  sonant  orders  of  gutturals  were  thereafter 
developed.  Hence  we  see  nothing  to  prevent  us  from  re- 
garding all  the  Semitic  gutturals  as  comparable  with  the 
spiritus  lenis  of  the  Aryans,  which  the  Greeks  alone  ex- 
pressed by  a  definite  sign,  since  they  borrowed  their  alphabet 
directly  from  a  Semitic  people.  Of  course  this  can  be 
proved  only  by  adequate  comparison  ;  but  we  are  concerned 
now  to  show  that  the  formidable  list  of  Semitic  gutturals 
ought  not  to  divert  us  from  the  attempt  to  institute  such 
a  comparison.  From  what  has  been  said  it  is  clear  that 
we  are  not  justified  in  receiving,  with  Dr.  Delitzsch'^  the 
Aryan  gh  as  the  analogue  of  what  we  may  call  the  surd  or 
h  order  of  Semitic  gutturals.  In  the  first  place  it  is  most 
probable  that  the  Aryan  sonant  aspirates,  ij-A,  dh,  bh,  arose, 
during  the  remoter  history  of  the  family,  from  the  earlier 
g",  d,  and  6,  just  as  in  Sanskrit  the  surd  aspirates  kh,  th,  and 
ph  arose  after  its  separation  from  the  main  linguistic  stem. 
In  the  second  place,  remembering  that  we  have  to  compare 
with  the  spiritus  asper,  or  the  simple  A,  we  find  that  its 
origin  in  the  Aryan  languages  is  not  due  exclusively,  or  even 
in  any  large  degree,  to  an  original  g-h.  In  the  old  Aryan 
tongues  there  were  apparently  two  types  of  guttural  sound  ; 
the  one  being  conveniently  represented  by  the  Greek  x  ^"^1 
the  other  by  the  Greek  -.  The  latter  sound  is  of  various 
origin.  It  either  arises  independently,  as  often  in  Greek  and 
Latin,  and  other  idioms,  or  represents  an  original  s,  y,  or  v, 
as  frequently  in  Greek,  or  is  due  to  the  dropping  of  the  g,  d, 

1  The  physiological  conditions  of  the  utterance  of  each  spiritus  are  given  by 
Merkel,  op.  cit.,  pp.  72-74,  who  also  shows  in  the  same  connection  how  natural 
the  transition  is  fiom  one  kind  of  guttural  to  any  other. 

*  Cited  on  p.  20. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         59 

or  b  from  the  original  aspirates,  as  occurs  irregularly  in  all 
the  Aryan  tongues,  especially  in  the  Keltic.  It  is  never  due 
directly,  in  our  opinion,  to  an  original  gh.  Gh,  it  is  true, 
is  represented  in  Latin  at  the  beginning  of  a  root  by  h,  as  it 
is  in  Greek  by  % ;  but  this  h  was  originally  a  rough  guttural  ^ 
like  the  Greek,  and  the  sound  was  heard  along  with  the 
ordinary  h  in  common  speech,  as  it  was  in  Anglo-Saxon ,2 
and  other  old  Teutonic  languages,  until  the  latter  sound  took 
its  place  entirely.  Further,  the  rough  Roman  h,  as  well  as 
the  Greek  %,  must,  we  think,  have  passed  through  a  stage 
in  which  it  had  the  kh  sound.^  But  it  may  be  asked  how 
the  Sanskrit  h  arose.  It  represents  mostly  an  original  g/iy 
and  is  manifestly  a  corruption  of  it.  It  is  a  sonant,  and  is 
the  only  h  in  the  Aryan  tongues  that  is  not  surd.  It  was 
evidently,  therefore,  not  primarily  formed  from  the  other 
aspirates  through  the  dropping  of  their  first  element ;  if  so  it 
would  have  been  a  surd,  as  the  h  so  arising  became  in  the  other 
Aryan  languages.  Its  pronunciation  probably  somewhat 
resembled  that  of  the  German  g-  in  Tag-e,  though  it  is  not 
safe  to  speak  with  authority  on  such  an  obscure  matter.* 
Tliis  theory  would  best  agree  with  its  development  from  gh. 
Here,  then,  we  admit,  is  a  guttural  breath  derived  from  gh. 
May  it  not  have  been  so  also  with  the  Semitic  family,  if  we 
allow  it  to  have  had  at  one  time  the  gh  sound  ?  Certainly 
not ;  for  its  modifications  would  have  brought  it  into  range 
with  the  sonant  or  n  order  of  gutturals,  whereas  Dr.  Delitzsch 
makes  the  gh  the  Aryan  representative  of  the  n,  or  surd 
order.     Moreover,  it  stands  most  nearly  related  phonologi- 

1  Corssen  :  Ueber  Aussprache  Betonung  u.  Vocalismus  d.  Lateinischen 
Sprache  {Leipzig,  1868),  Vol  i.  pp.  96,  97. 

2  March's  Anglo-Saxon  Grammar,  p.  17. 

8  The  Keltic  (Old  Irish)  ch  is  corrupted  from  c{k),  occasionally  from  g; 
Zeuss,  Grammatica  Celtica,  2d  ed.  (Berlin,  1871),  pp.  6.3-71,  comp.  pp.  74,  78; 
Schleicher's  Compendium  (4th  ed.),  pp.  273-279.  The  Aryan  gh  becomes  (7  in 
Keltic. 

■•  Schleicher  (Compendium,  4th  ed.,  p.  17),  gives  it  the  sound  of  the  German  h, 
made  sonant.  Bopp  (Kritische  Gramm.  d.  Sanskrita-Sprache,  4th  ed.,  p.  20  f.), 
makes  it  equal  to  the  Greek  x  softened.  This  agrees  more  nearly  with  our  own 
view,  and  harmonizes  better  with  our  theory  as  to  the  genesis  of  each  sound. 


60  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

callj  to  A,  the  Semitic  guttural  ;^  which,  as  we  have  seen, 

was  not  the  first,  but  the  very  last  of  the  Semitic  gutturals 
in  the  order  of  development. 

We  have  dealt  thus  at  length  with  the  guttural  sounds, 
because  they  are  so  numerous  and  so  peculiarly  Semitic,  and 
seem  to  present  obstacles  in  the  way  of  a  comparison  with 
the  Aryan  family  which  the  other  classes  of  sounds  do  not. 
The  conclusion  at  which  we  arrive  is,  that  all  of  these 
gutturals  in  our  comparisons  ought  to  be  disregarded,  as 
they  are  of  purely  Semitic  development.  The  spiritus  lenis, 
-  or  N,  is  all  that  was  common  to  Aryan  and  Semitic  at  the 
time  of  their  separation,  if  they  ever  spoke  a  common  idiom 
at  all. 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  write,  in  this  connection,  at  the 
same  length  of  the  other  classes  of  comparable  Aryan  and 
Semitic  sounds.  The  same  principles  which  were  maintained 
with  regard  to  the  development  of  the  variant  gutturals  will 
hold  with  regard  to  the  differentiation  of  other  sounds  within 
the  bounds  of  their  own  generic  classes.  We  shall  therefore 
proceed  more  rapidly  to  an  examination  of  the  remaining 
contents  of  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  alphabets. 

Next  to  be  considered  are  the  other  weak  sounds  v  (w) 
and  y.  As  far  as  can  be  made  out  at  the  present  stage  of 
linguistic  science,  these  were  radical  sounds  in  the  two  great 
families,  though  their  history  has  been  strikingly  different  in 
many  respects.  As  to  the  Aryan  v,  the  fact  admits  of  no 
question  ;  as  to  the  ?/,  though  it  does  not  occur  in  many 
Aryan  roots,  yet  these  are  very  ancient,  and  its  use  both  in 
the  pronouns  and  in  inflective  elements  shows  that  it  could 
not  very  well  have  been  developed  from  an  original  /,  from 
which  it  often  arises  in  both  Aryan  and  non- Aryan  linguistic 
forms.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  in  roots,  not  in 
formative  elements,  the  use  of  v  preponderates  largely  over 
that  of  y.  The  same  holds  true  in  the  Semitic  family.  Y  is 
much  more  rarely  found  in  the  triliteral  roots  than  is  v. 

1  It  has  been  ohserved  by  Sweet  that  the  German  g  in  Tage,  or  the  Modern 
Greek  y  sometimes  passes  into  a  uvular  r;  this  is  the  vanishing  sound  of  the 
Arabic  letter. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  61 

What  is  most  remarkable,  however,  about  these  sounds,  from 
a  comparative  point  of  view,  is  that  they  are  vastly  more 
numerous  in  roots  of  the  Semitic  family  than  in  those  of  the 
Aryan.  This  is  certainly  a  most  instructive  fact,  as  it  is 
one  that  cannot  be  ignored  in  any  just  investigation  of  the 
general  question  of  Aryo-Semitic  relations.  It  may  be  ac- 
counted for  in  this  way :  Over  and  above  the  normal  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Aryan  y  and  w  in  Semitic,  there  would  be 
two  occasions  of  a  large  addition.  First,  it  is  natural  to 
assume  that  these  primary  vowels  of  the  Aryo-Semitic  stock 
would  often  harden  into  serai-vowels ;  i  and  u  would  thus 
become  y  and  y,  in  a  consonantal  system  like  the  Semitic. 
Again,  in  many  of  the  originally  biliteral  roots  in  Semitic, 
these  would  become  triliteral  through  the  use  of  weak  letters 
such  as  y  and  v.  Hence  a  Semitic  w  ov  y  would  in  com- 
parisons have  to  be  regarded  sometimes  as  having  no  repre- 
sentative in  the  Aryan  speech,  sometimes  as  representing  an 
Aryan  u  or  i,  and  sometimes  their  own  phonetic  equivalent. 
It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  the  Semitic  forms  in 
which  either  of  these  sounds  occurs  require  great  delicacy 
and  caution  in  treatment ;  for  we  must  not  only  ascertain 
to  what  class  each  belongs  as  regards  its  origin,  but  also  to 
discriminate  carefully  between  the  two  letters,  inasmuch  as 
they  so  frequently  interchange,  especially  in  some  of  the 
dialects.  On  these  sounds  we  have  nothing  further  to  remark, 
except  to  say  that,  according  to  our  present  light.  Dr.  De- 
litzsch  appears  to  be  fully  justified  in  excluding  the  Aryan 
y  from  his  table  of  phonetic  correspondences. 

The  sounds  I  and  r  come  up  next  for  discussion.  Dr. 
Delitzsch,  in  his  table  above  cited,  makes  the  Aryan  r  repre- 
sentative of  the  Semitic  r  and  /.  We  have  no  objection  to 
this  statement ;  but  it  requires  to  be  properly  explained, 
from  a  consideration  of  the  true  relations  of  the  two  sounds 
to  one  another.  First,  as  to  the  Aryan  sounds.  It  is  usually 
held,  mostly  through  the  influence  of  Schleicher  ^  and  Fick,^ 

1  Compendium,  etc.,  pp.  11,  162. 

2  This  is  assamed  throughout  his  Vergl.  Worterbuch  d.  indogerm.  Sprachea. 


62  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

that  the  i)rhuitive  Aryan  had  no  I,  and  that  in  all  the  cases 
of  the  appearance  of  that  sound  in  the  diverging  languages, 
it  arose  from  the  r.  This  is  one  of  the  most  interesting 
questions  in  Aryan  phonology,  though  one  which  cannot  be 
discussed  here.  We  only  remark  upon  it  that  the  contrary 
opinion,  which  has  been  defended  by  Heymann,i  seems  to  be 
entitled  to  at  least  as  much  support.^  With  regard  to  the 
Semitic  /  and  r  the  sources  of  evidence  are  still  fewer  and 
more  doubtful.  But  as  to  both  families  we  would  maintain 
that  both  sounds  once  existed,  though  vaguely  and  even 
interchangeably  pronounced.  In  behalf  of  this  we  would 
cite  the  history  of  the  sounds  in  all  families  that  possess 
them.  There  are  no  sounds  in  human  speech  more  liable  to 
confusion  and  interconversion.^  Even  in  the  Aryan  tongues, 
where  as  a  rule  /  is  developed  from  r,  the  change  from  r  to  Z 
is  not  infrequent.'*  In  the  Dravidian  family  of  languages^ 
the  Tamil,  Telugu,  Canarese,  etc.,  r  also  changes  into  /, 
though  the  reverse  is  very  often  the  case.^  In  some  of  the 
dialects  of  Polynesia,  of  South  Africa,  and  of  the  Indians  of 
North  America  the  confusion  is  almost  universal.^  In  some 
words  the  speaker  is  heard  to  pronounce  /,  and  in  other  words 
r,  wl  en  the  sound  is  radically  the  same.  In  some  languages 
the  /  is  wanting,  as  in  Zend,  as  also  in  old  Persian,"  in  Ar- 

1  Das  I  der  indogermanischen  Sprachen  gehort  der  indogerm.  Grundsprache 
(GiJttingen,  1873). 

2  A  full  review  of  the  controversy  and  of  the  state  of  the  question  is  given  in 
Pezzi's  Glottologia  aria  recentissima,  pp.  17-24.  The  author  himself  holds  to 
to  the  belief  that  I  was  a  primiuve  Aryan  sound. 

^  Even  cultivated  persons  speaking  highly  developed  languages  are  liable  to 
this  infirmity,  e.g.  Alcibiades  who  was  ridiculed  by  Aristophanes  for  his  use  oil 
for  r,  Vespae  44.     Cf.  Plutarch,  Vit.  Ale.  1.     This  was  probably  not  affectation. 

*  See  some  examples  in  M.  Miilier's  Science  of  Language  (Am.  ed),  ii.  p.  184. 

^  Rev.  Dr.  Caldwell,  Comp.  Grammar  of  the  Dravidian  Languages,  p.  120, 
cited  by  M.  Miillcr,  ii.  p.  18.3. 

^  Even  among  the  dialects  which  are  generally  supposed  to  have  no  r  sound 
at  all,  and  whose  speakers  arc  thought  to  use  /  in  place  of  it  in  trying  to  utter 
a  foreign  word,  cases  arc  not  unknown  of  the  utterance  of  the  r.  The  writer 
has  had  as  a  guide  on  angling  excursions  a  Micmac  Indian,  —  a  tribe  usually 
thought  incajjablc  of  the  r,  —  who  actually  changed  a  foreign  I  into  an  r  more 
frequently  than  the  reverse,  saying  ricker,  for  example,  instead  of  liquor. 

'  Zeitschrift  d.  deutschea  morgenl.  Gesellschaft,  Vols.  xiii.  p.  379  ;  xvi.  p.  11. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  63 

menian,^  and  in  several  dialects  of  Japan,  of  Africa,  and 
America.^  i?,  again,  is  wanting  in  Chinese,  in  many  dialects 
of  America  and  Polynesia,  and  in  the  Kafir  language.^  Some 
languages,  again,  have  two  r's,  as  the  dialects  of  Australia  ;  * 
while  others  have  two  ^s,  as  some  of  the  Siberian  idioms.^ 
One  tribe,  at  least,  of  the  last-named  family,  the  Tchuktches, 
have  two  r's  and  two  Z's.^  It  is  only  necessary  to  add  that 
in  the  literary  period  of  the  Semitic  languages  r  sometimes 
becomes  /,'  though  the  reverse  is  not  yet  proved.  From  all 
this  it  seems  clear  that  in  all  languages  both  sounds  were 
originally  one,  and  that,  in  most  cases,  a  sound  vibrating 
between  the  two.  In  most  languages  as  they  advanced  in 
age  the  two  were  clearly  discriminated.  In  the  Aryan,  for 
some  time  before  the  divergence  of  its  dialects,  they  were  prob- 
ably not  yet  perfectly  distinct.^  In  Semitic  they  must  have 
been  divaricated  very  early  in  its  separate  history.  It  follows, 
accordingly,  that  for  purposes  of  comparison  r  and  /  in  both 
families  may  be  regarded  as  representing  the  same  primi- 
tive sound.  To  the  hypotlietical  Aryo-Semitic  speech  one 
might  then  justly  apply  the  remark  made  by  Dr.  Bleek  of 
the  Setchuana  dialects :  "  One  is  justified  to  consider  r  in 
these  dialects  as  a  sort  of  floating  letter,  and  rather  iutet- 
mediate  between  I  and  r  than  a  decided  r  sound."  ^ 

M  and  n  do  not  require  much  discussion  for  the  settlement 
of  their  relations  in  the  two  systems.     Unlike  the  last  two 

1  Zeitschrift  d.  deutschen  MorgenL  Gesellschaft,  VoL  xiii  p.  380. 

2  Ibid.,  VoL  xii.  p.  453. 

8  See  the  references  in  Max  Miiller's  Science  of  Language,  ii.  pp.  179,  180. 

*  Friedrich  Muller,Grundriss  d.  Sprachwissenschaft,  ii.  Band,  1.  Abth.(Wien, 
1879),  pp.  1,  81,  etc. 

*  F.  Miiller,  op.  c.  p.  100. 
«  F.  Miiller,  op.  c.  p.  1.34. 

'  So  r.i:rbx  Ezek.  xix.  7  ;  Isa.  xiii.  22,  for  niDB'lX ,  palaces  :  b'^risn  Ps. 
cv.  1.5  for  "I'^nijn,  to  make  to  shine  (comp.  Ewald,  Ausf.  hebr.  Lehrbuch,  8th 
ed.,  1870,  §  51  c).  In  Assyrian  even  a  sibihint  generally  becomes  /  before  a 
dental  (Sayce,  Comp.  Assyr.  Grammar,  p.  30),  but  it  must  first  have  become  r; 
hence  the  name  Chaldaeans,  as  compared  with  n'''nilJ3, 

"  Comp.  Pezzi,  Glottologia  aria  rcccntissima,  p.  24. 

'  The  Library  of  His  Excellency  Sir  George  Grey  ;  Philology  (Capetown, 
1858),  Vol.  i.  p.  135,  quoted  by  M.  Miiller,  Science  of  Language,  ii.  p.  184. 


64  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

sounds,  they  are  totally  distinct  in  their  origin  in  all  lan- 
guages. As  nasals  they  are  liable  to  occasional  interchange 
in  both  families,  but  are  not  regularly  inter-convertible.  In 
the  Semitic  roots  care  must  be  taken  to  distinguish  between 
the  undoubtedly  radical  n  and  the  same  sound  where  it 
seems,  upon  evidence  which  we  shall  adduce  hereafter,  to 
have  been  used  as  a  mere  determinative,  as  it  appears  to  be 
one  of  the  letters  most  frequently  employed  for  the  purpose. 
Moreover,  being  next  in  weakness  to  y  and  v,  it  is  liable  to 
take  the  place  of  other  liquid  letters,  as  well  as  to  interchange 
with  y,  a  matter  of  very  frequent  occurrence,  ilf,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  much  more  stable  than  n.  It  passes  into  n 
much  less  frequently  than  the  reverse  occurs,  and  very  rarely 
takes  the  place  of  the  other  liquids.^  Of  course,  in  Semitic 
the  m  is  liable  to  interchange  with  the  other  labials  —  a  phe- 
nomenon appearing  in  all  languages  possessing  these  sounds.^ 
The  Semitic  m  and  n  may  be  provisionally  taken  to  represent 
the  corresponding  Aryan  sounds,  with  important  restrictions 
which  may  operate  in  consideration  of  the  foregoing  cautions. 

We  pass  now  to  the  sibilants  of  the  respective  systems. 
At  first  sight,  a  comparison  seems  very  difficult,  if  not  im- 
possible. In  the  primitive  Aryan  tliere  was  only  one  5,  the 
ordinary  fundamental  sibilant.  In  the  Semitic  idiom  there 
are  several,  and  it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  them,  to 
classify  them,  and  to  reduce  them,  if  possible,  to  their  funda- 
mental primitive  sounds,  so  that  we  may  get  a  proper  basis 
of  comparison  with  the  Aryan  5. 

A  careful  comparison  of  the  Semitic  sibilants  leads  us  to 
the  conclusion  that  before  the  breaking  up  of  the  family  there 
were  developed  four  distinct  sounds,  answering  respectively 
to  b,  in,  t,  y.  These  sounds  emerge  on  comparing  all  the 
dialects, —  Arabic,  Ethiopic,  Aramaic,  Hebrew,  and  Assyrian, 

1  A  rare  instance  of  m  arising  from  I  is  shown  in  the  Arabic  '^  r'<a.  ^  -..^  skull, 
answering  to  the  Hebrew  r^jba. 

2  That  is,  nearly  all  known  languages.  In  a  few  they  are  wanting  altogether, 
as  in  those  of  the  Six  Nations  and  the  Hurons  in  North  America ;  in  others 
some  of  them  arc  absent,  as  in  a  few  of  the  dialects  of  Africa,  and  throughout 
Australia. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         65 

with  their  subordinate  varieties, —  and  to  them  all  the  other 
sibilant  modifications  may  be  reduced.  The  z  sound  (pro- 
nounced as  in  English)  is  the  sonant  of  the  surd  5,  and  arises 
from  it  normally  in  all  languages  which  possess  it,  though 
also  occasionally  springing  from  other  sounds.  Hence  we 
have  to  account  for  the  sounds  o,ci,  and  ■}'.  These  con- 
clusions we  shall  try  to  make  clear. 

In  the  first  place,  the  s  and  sh  sounds  (Hob.  d,  b,  and  b,  Syr. 
.ja  and  uk,-:  Arabic  ^  and  * ,  Ethiopic  f*l  and  tU»  Assyrian 
s'  and  s  i)  sprang  from  the  same  source.  This  might  be 
argued  from  the  history  of  the  sounds  in  languages  generally, 
in  which  sh  is  developed  from  s.  But  we  have  other  evi- 
dence, drawn  from  the  phenomena  exhibited  by  these  sounds 
in  the  history  of  the  different  Semitic  idioms.  The  distinction 
between  the  io  and  b  sounds,  by  which  the  former  approximated 
to  the  sound  of  6  2  was  made  in  Hebrew  alone  sufficiently 
important  to  be  represented  by  a  special  sign.  Leaving  these 
aside,  as  of  clearly  late  origin,  we  find  that  the  s  and  sh 
sounds  have  fluctuated  and  varied  greatly  from  the  time  of 
the  separation  of  the  different  branches  of  the  family.  If 
these  dialects  be  divided  roughly  into  Northern  and  Southern 
Semitic,  —  the  former  including  Hebrew,  Aramaic,  and  As- 
syrian, the  latter,  Arabic  and  Ethiopic, —  it  will  be  found  that 
the  sh  sound  of  the  northern  division  is  represented  mostly 
by  the  s  sound  in  the  southern,  while  the  s  of  the  former 
corresponds  radically  for  the  most  part  to  the  sh  of  the  latter. 
Yet  the  correspondence  is  not  sufficiently  regular  to  make 
this  a  fixed  principle  of  sound-shifting ;  nor  can  the  division 
given  above  be  regarded  as  anything  more  than  a  very  general 
classification.  A  multitude  of  facts  could  be  adduced,  in 
addition  to  the  above,  if  space  permitted,  to  show  how  these 

^  S"  =  Heb.  b,  and  s  =  O.  This  is  the  usual  method  of  transcription.  It  is 
one  of  our  misfortunes  that  sh  seems  to  represent  a  double  instead  of  a  single  sound. 

*  That  b  nnd  b  were  originally  distinct  in  Hebrew  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the 
0  is  represented  in  Arabic  by  ^^  more  frequently  than  by  .  i  ^  while  the  "U  is 
represented  only  by  (i.  Sec  Ewald,  Ausf.  hebr.  Lehrbuch  (8th  ed.,  1870), 
t  50  a.    In  later  times  D  and  W  were  much  interchanged. 


66  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

sibilants  varied  and  interchanged  from  the  earliest  known 
Semitic  times,  and  that  too  according  to  no  stable  law  of 
permutation,  but  according  to  local  and  tribal  peculiarities, 
such  as  has  made  the  sh  sound  difficult  to  the  Ephraimites,^ 
and  to  many  others  throughout  the  world,  the  same  sh  sound 
disappear  in  the  later  Ethiopic,^  to  a  great  extent  in  Keltic,^ 
and  in  various  other  idioms.  The  conclusion  is  that  the 
supj30sition  of  a  development  of  s  and  sh  from  two  fundamen- 
tally distinct  sounds,  —  a  notion  improbable  on  general  prin- 
ciples,—  is  untenable  also  on  historical  grounds.  What  the 
original  sound  was,  it  is  impossible  to  determine  with  exact- 
ness. Most  probably,  however,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  it 
was  that  of  the  Hebrew  tj,  or  the  ordinary  5,  with  a  slight 
tendency  to  palatization  which  would  account  for  the  fre- 
quency of  the  sh  sound  in  the  southern  dialects,  and  its  pre- 
ponderance in  the  northern,  where  other  influences  were 
also  brought  to  bear,  tending  the  same  way. 

The  z  sound  (Heb.  t)  arose  sometimes  from  s  and  some- 
times from  the  sound  represented  by  the  Hebrew  y.  In 
either  case,  as  we  shall  see,  the  primary  source  was  probably 
the  same.  It  clearly  was  not  an  original  Semitic,  as  also  it 
was  not  an  Aryan,  sound. 

It  remains,  then,  to  account  for  y  and  its  representatives  in 
the  other  dialects.  This  is  peculiarly  Semitic,  running  through 
all  the  branches  of  the  family.  Yet  is  only  peculiarly  Semitic 
as  a  constant  letter  ;  for  the  sound  itself  is  probably  heard  in 
every  language  possessing  sibilants  at  all.  In  English,  for 
example,  we  come  near  it  in  saying  cost,  as  distinguished 
from  the  s  in  cast.  It  is  due  there  to  the  vowel  sound  with 
which  it  is  connected  ;  but  in  the  Semitic  languages  its  sound  is 
the  same  no  matter  what  may  be  the  accompanying  vowels.  In 
the  northern  Semitic  there  seems  to  have  been  a  slight 
hardening  of  the  first  part  of  the  utterance,  with  almost  a 

1  Judg.  xii.  6. 

2  See  Dillmann,  Aethiop.  Grammatik,  p.  51.  His  whole  discussion  of  the 
Ethiopic  sibilants  is  very  instructive,  and  confirms  very  strongly  the  view  here 
advocated. 

8  Schleicher,  op.  cit.,  p.  275.    Zeusa.  op.  cit.,  p.  119  f.  et  aL 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         67 

complete  closing  of  the  organs,  giving  the  effect  of  a  slight 
t  sound  before  the  sibilant.  But  even  this  sound  was  usually 
transcribed  bj  9  in  the  Septuagint,  as  ^a^cuaO  for  nixss,  and 
very  seldom  by  f.  The  pronunciation  primarily  was  evi- 
dently that  of  a  strong  5,  made  with  the  tongue  turned  back 
against  the  roof  of  the  mouth.  It  stood  related  to  the  ordi- 
nary s  as  the  Hebrew  a  to  r.  Various  lines  of  evidence 
point  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  not  an  original  sound,  but 
one  developed  from  the  primitive  s.  First,  its  organic  asso- 
ciation with  the  latter.  The  original  s  was  probably,  as  we 
have  seen,  pronounced  indistinctly,  and  perhaps  somewhat 
variously.  There  was  that  tendency  among  the  Semites  to 
multiply  consonantal  sounds  which  we  have  already  dis- 
cussed. What  more  natural  than  to  take  the  occasional  sound 
of  s,  just  described  as  existing  in  English  and  elsewhere, 
and  make  it  a  fixed  one,  without  regard  to  the  vowels  accom- 
panying, especially  when  it  is  considered  that  the  vowels 
played  a  secondary  part,  and  were  necessarily  varied  con- 
tinually within  the  same  invariable  consonantal  formula? 
The  Semites,  in  developing  their  roots,  necessarily  had  the 
sense  of  consonantal  stability  developed  and  continually 
exercised  ;  while  the  Aryans  have  regarded  the  preservation 
of  the  vowels  as  essentially  bound  up  in  vital  union  with  the 
consonants.  The  Semites,  then,  would  be  inclined  to  hold 
fast  to  each  distinct  consonantal  sound  when  once  made 
familiar  to  their  ears.  The  Aryans  could  not ;  for  the  same 
vowels  being  retained  in  each  utterance  would  prevent  the 
discrimination  of  the  consonantal  variations,  just  as  we  are 
still  ordinarily  unconscious  that  the  s  in  cast  and  the  s  in 
cost  are  different  sounds.  Secondly,  the  same  thing  is 
illustrated  in  the  history  of  the  most  fully  developed  Semitic 
dialects, —  the  Ethiopic  and  especially  the  Arabic,  —  where 
the  tendency,  having  once  fairly  set  in,  was  carried  so  far 
that  not  only  the  simple  s  and  t,  but  also  the  d  and  the  z^ 
had  their  secondary  sounds.  It  is  fair  to  argue,  within  cer- 
tain well-considered  limits,  from  the  living  facts  of  a  lan- 
guage to  its  inherent  tendencies,  and  in  these  later  develop- 


68  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

ments  of  the  Semitic  idiom  we  see  exemplified  the  principles 
of  its  primitive  working.  In  the  third  place,  the  y  sound 
seems  not  to  have  heen  originally  a  distinct  sibilant,  for  it 
interchanges  with  the  s  and  z  sounds  so  frequently  in  kindred 
roots  that  we  can  hardly  attribute  the  coincidences  to  the 
confusion  of  the  sounds.  One  must  have  developed  from 
another.  For  proof  of  this  statement  we  must  appeal  to  the 
lexicons,  since  we  cannot  afford  the  space  needed  for  an 
adequate  exhibition. 

It  is  now  proper  to  show  how  all  the  Semitic  sibilants  may 
be  classified  as  to  their  immediate  origin.  To  the  Hebrew 
Y  and  its  equivalent  in  Aramaic  and  Assyrian  answer  the 
Ethiopic  /\  and  9  and  the  Arabic  ^,  ^^,  and  ^.  These 
were  all  developed  at  first  from  the  y  sound,  though  on 
account  of  their  similarity  to  other  sounds,  such  as  those  of 
M  and  o ,  they  were  often  interchanged  with  the  latter,  and 
more  rarely  with  other  sounds.  According  to  the  modern 
Arabic  pronunciation,  which  may  be  taken  as  sufiiciently 
near  the  ancient  for  our  purpose,  there  were  thus  two  orders 
of  sounds ;  the  one  uttered  with  the  tongue  close  to  the 
teeth:  o,  nj  (to),  t,  or  their  equivalents;  and  the  other  with 
the  tongue  turned  back  against  the  roof  of  the  mouth :  ^ 
(y),  ^ji  ^,  and  Jp,-^  Tn  these  groups  ts  and  y  represent  the 
primary  sounds  of  their  respective  ranks.  The  historical 
development  is  probably  to  be  represented  by  the  order  of 
the  letters  as  they  here  stand,  except  that  t,  in  all  likelihood, 
arose  later  than  y.  While  all  of  these  were  thus  primarily 
developed  from  one  sound,  it  ought  to  be  observed  that 
sometimes  we  find  a  sibilant  degenerated  from  a  mute,  as  ^ 
from  n,  t  from  ^.  In  comparisons  these  must,  of  course,  be 
carefully  distinguished  from  those  which  are  unquestionably 
of  sibilant  origin. 

The  last  group  of   consonants  to  be  considered   are  the 

1  Pronounced  as  d  would  be  in  the  emphatic  English  syllable  odd.  The  ori- 
ginal sibilation  was  gradually  lost.  In  Ethiopic  it  was  resumed  again.  See 
Dillmann's  Grammar,  p.  52. 

*  ProBOuneed  as  2  in  the  combination  ozz. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  AYEAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         69 

so-called  mutes  or  explosives,  represented  in  English  by  /?, 
g ;  t^d ;  p^  b.  Looking  first  at  the  Aryan  alphabet,  we  find 
that  it  had,  besides  the  primary,  also  a  secondary  ^  series  of  gut- 
turals, most  probably  developed  from  the  former.  The  sonants 
were  also  aspirated  so  as  to  yield  three  additional  letters,  g-A, 
dh,  and  bh.  That  these  latter  arose  later  than  «•,  d,  and  b  we 
have  already  hinted  in  treating  of  the  supposed  correspon- 
dence between  gh  and  the  Semitic  gutturals.  This  is  a 
question  which  is,  of  course,  not  to  be  solved  through  acces- 
sible historical  evidence.  The  sonant  aspirates  were  very 
important  and  well-established  phonetic  elements  when  the 
several  Aryan  dialects  branched  off,  and  are  represented 
more  or  less  in  them  all.  To  show  that  the  unaspirated 
sounds  preceded  them  in  origin,  we  shall  point,  first,  to  the 
fact  that  the  aspirating  tendency  was  evidently  still  present 
at  the  Aryan  dispersion.  The  surd  mutes  A;,  t,p,  were  then 
unaspirated.  They  assumed  the  aspiration  afterwards,  not 
only  in  Sanskrit,  but  also  in  other  Aryan  dialects.  But  it 
may  he,  said  that  tlie  roots  in  which  these  aspirates  are  found 
are  more  numerous  than  those  which  contain  unaspirated 
letters,  and  therefore  the  former  class  of  sounds  might  seem 
to  have  been  the  earlier.  In  our  view  this  only  shows  the 
strength  of  the  tendency  to  aspirate  the  sonant  mutes,  after 
it  had  once  well  begun.  Otherwise  we  would  be  led  to  curious 
conclusions.  Take  the  sounds  b  and  bh,  for  example, 
Schleicher,  who  also  thinks  that  the  aspirates  are  of  later 
origin  than  the  simple  g",  cf,  b,  asserts  that  he  does  not  know 
of  a  single  example  which  proves  beyond  doubt  the  existence 
of  b  in  the  old  Aryan  idiom  as  it  is  accessible  to  us.  And  it  is 
certain  that  this  sound  is  never  found  as  a  final  in  Aryan  roots, 
while  its  existence  at  the  beginning  is  perhaps  more  than 
doubtful.  If  the  aspirates  were  also  original  sounds,  we 
should  thus  be  compelled  to  believe  that  in  the  Aryan  system 
the  simple  b  was  originally  unknown,  though  all  the  members 
of  that  family  subsequently  developed  it  as  one  of  their  most 

1  The  two  sets  are  generally  represented  by  Ascoli  (the  discoverer)  and  his 
followers  as  "  k>,  g^,  gh^ ;  k-,  g^,  gh-."  We  shall  follow  Fick  and  Curtius  in 
writing  k  for  k^.    It  answers  to  the  9  of  Sanskrit  and  Zend, 


70  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

important  elements,  and  although  the  same  idiom  had  from 
the  beginning  the  corresponding  surd  p  unaspirated  —  a  sup- 
position almost,  if  not  quite,  incredible  according  to  general 
linguistic  experience.  The  conclusion  seems,  on  all  grounds, 
inevitable,  that  the  primary  Aryan  mutes  were  simply  /?,  t,  p, 
g-,  d,  b. 

An  examination  of  the  Semitic  mutes  leads  to  precisely 
the  same  result.  At  the  outset  we  must  observe  that  tlie 
spirant  sound  assumed  by  b,  d,  g-.  k,  p,  t  after  vowels,  which 
was,  perhaps,  due  to  Aramaic  influence,  and  is  only  found 
in  that  language  and  Hebrew,  with  their  dialectical  vari- 
eties, was  of  late  origin.  It  was  unknown  in  Arabic,  Ethi- 
opic,  and  apparently  in  Assyrian.^  The  change  of  p  into /in 
Arabic,  which  wholly  lost  the  former  sound,  cannot  be  surely 
traced  to  a  like  influence.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Arabic  th. 
Leaving  out  these  incidental  variations,  and  beginning  with 
the  palatals,  we  find  that  besides  the  ordinary  k  we  have  a 
deeper  palatal,  the  Hebrew  j?,  represented  throughout  the 
whole  family.  It  had  its  origin  some  time  before  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  Semitic  tribes,  as  is  proved  by  its  individuality 
and  vitality  throughout  the  history  of  Semitic  speech.  It 
was  doubtless  developed  from  the  ordinary  k  sound  through 
the  same  tendency  that  led,  in  the  same  family,  to  the  pro- 
duction of  the  deep  gutturals.  Yet  it  had  also  strong 
affinities  with  the  g"  sound,  as  is  shown  by  the  great  number 
of  cases  in  which  they  interchange,  as  well  as  by  the  fact 
that  in  later  Semitic  times  it  has  shown  a  tendency  to  a 
sonant  utterance,  as  in  Babylonian  ^  and  in  some  dialects  of 
Modern  Arabic.^  So  it  also  interchanges,  though  less  fre- 
quently, with  the  gutturals;  and,  in  all  cases  of  its  citation 
in  comparisons,  its  true  relations  will  have  to  be  ascertained. 

Next,  as  to  t  and  d.  The  latter  sound  has  a  variant  only 
in  Arabic  and  Ethiopic.  This  has  been  developed  from  the 
y  sound,  as  already  seen ;  but  from  its  resemblance  to  the 
primary  d  sound,  the  latter  was  often  interchanged  with  it. 

1  Sayce,  Comp.  Assyrian  Grammar,  p.  30.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  30. 

8  See  Mcrx,  in  the  Zeitschrift  d.  morgenl.  Ges.  xxii.  273. 


RELATIONS  TO  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         71 

D  with  its  representatives  owes  its  origin  to  the  primary  ^, 
though  it  often  takes  the  place  of  y  on  account  of  the  organic 
association  of  these  sounds.^  Less  frequently  it  stands  for 
an  original  d.  The  Arabic  ^^  arose  from  s,  as  is  shown, 
among  other  ways,  by  its  correspondence  with  the  Aramaic 
alone,  where  all  the  other  dialects  have  U). 

As  to  the  labial  order  of  mutes  no  difficulty  occurs.  The 
Arabic  vj  is,  of  course,  only  the  primary  p  become  a  spirant. 
It  corresponds  regularly  with  the  p  in  the  other  dialects. 
The  Ethiopic  shows  most  peculiarity  here.  It  has  the  /  of 
the  Arabic,  and,  besides  the  ordinary  7?  (perhaps  slightly  assibi- 
lated)  another,  whose  pronunciation  it  is  difficult  to  discover 
exactly,  but  which  seems  to  have  been  uttered  quickly  and 
emphatically,  perhaps  after  the  manner  of  a  as  compared  with 
n.  The  two  last  seem  to  have  been  mostly  developed  from  an 
earlier  b,  though  sometimes  also  from  p  itself.  These  labials 
in  Ethiopic  are  the  most  fluctuating  sounds  in  the  language, 
and  have  rendered  their  comparison  with  labials  in  the  other 
dialects  somewhat  uncertain  in  many  cases.  The  Semitic  b 
had  virtually  the  same  pronunciation  throughout  the  whole 
system.  It  should  be  added  that  in  all  the  dialects  not  only 
does  b  sometimes  take  the  place  of  p,  but  the  other  labial 
m  takes  the  place  of  either.  Naturally,  however,  this  did 
not  take  place  in  the  earliest  Semitic  times,  and  a  careful 
examination  ought  to  enable  us,  as  with  other  cases  of 
permutation,  to  determine  the  primary  forms.  This  hasty 
survey  brings  us  to  the  simple  sounds  k,  t,  p,  g;  </,  b,  as  the 
original  Semitic  mutes. 

We  have  thus  reduced  both  the  Aryan  and  the  Semitic 
consonants  to  their  primary  limits.  We  have  found  that 
the  original  Aryan  stock  consisted  of  the  following  sounds : 
^N  ^?  Pi  &"?  ^5  ^?  ^5  ^  (Oj^*^  **?  2/?  ^5  with  the  spiritus  lenis. 
The  original  Semitic  stock  has  been  reduced  to  precisely  the 
same   sounds.     No  root,  therefore,  can  be  found  in  either 

1  If  the  tongue  be  very  slightly  moved  from  the  roof  of  the  mouth  while  the 
organs  are  in  the  13  position,  and  an  emphatic  hissing  sound  be  made,  the  result 
will  be  y. 


72         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

family  which  contains  a  consonant  not  reducible  ultimately 
to  some  sound  in  the  above  catalogue. 

A  discussion  of  the  vowels  will  not  be  of  much  importance 
for  actual  comparison,  since  the  Semitic  subordination  of  the 
vowel  to  the  consonant  precludes  it  generally  from  admission 
into  the  field  of  inquiry  about  to  be  entered  upon.  At  tlie 
same  time  it  is  worth  noticing  that  the  two  families  show 
that  at  one  time  they  had  in  common  simply  the  primary 
vowels  a,  i,  u.  The  recent  discovery,  which  shows  that  the 
reputed  Proto-Aryan  a  must  be  differentiated  into  a},  a^,  a^, 
does  not  invalidate  the  conclusion  ;  while  on  the  Semitic 
side,  the  fact  that  the  Arabic  and  Assyrian  possess  just  the 
simple  scale  a,  i,  u,  proves  the  case  for  that  family.^ 

As  has  been  already  suggested  in  connection  with  several 
of  the  consonants  treated  of  above,  it  is  not  maintained  that 
the  secondary  sounds  were  developed  from  the  primary  in 
every  case  of  their  occurrence  in  actual  roots.  In  the  fore- 
going discussion  I  have  only  cited  the  fact  of  such  normal 
representation  as  affording  evidence  of  the  real  relationship 
of  the  sounds  in  question.  In  quite  a  number  of  cases,  even 
in  Proto-Semitic,  these  secondary  sounds,  since  they  had 
been  firmly  established  in  the  language,  arose  by  degenera- 
tion from  other  sounds  than  their  primary  originals.  The 
frequency  with  which  n  appears  in  roots  as  coming  from  an 
original  p  is  one  of  many  obvious  illustrations  of  the  general 
fact. 

So  much  for  the  Proto-Aryan  and  Proto-Semitic  sounds 
considered  separately.  The  next  question,  as  to  how  the 
sounds  of  the  two  systems  represented  one  another  in  actual 
roots,  which  is  one  of  more  practical  importance  in  the 
general  subject,  can,  of  course,  be  fully  answered  only  when 
we  shall  have  presented  a  comparison  of  the  roots  that  may 
seem  to  claim  relationship.     It  will  be  necessary,  however, 

1  Arabic  and  Assyrian  did  not  simplify  the  original  system  of  vowels ;  the 
other  dialects  amplified  it.  See  Schrader,  in  Zeitschrift  d.  d.  morg.  Gesellschaft, 
Vol.  xxvii.  p.  408. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        73 

to  insert  here  provisionally  the  results  of  our  observations 
as  embodied  in  the  following  scheme  : 


Proto-Semitic.i 
D  k,     p  k, 

Pro  to- Aryan. 

'  =  spiritus  lenis. 
k,  k 

i  8" 

t 

T  d 

d 

e  p 

:i  b 

P 

bh 

U3  5,    0,  s',    i:  s 

s 

->  r,    b  / 

riO 

»  m 

m 

3  n 

n 

5»    V 

V 

The  following  remarks  should  be  made  with  reference  to 
this  table. 

1.  In  tlie  roots  that  have  been  examined  for  phonetic  rep- 
resentations, no  account  has  been  made  of  those  which  show 
degeneration  of  sound  from  earlier  forms.  The  earliest 
historical  expression  of  the  root-idea  has  been  taken  in 
each  instance.  A  fuller  exhibition  of  later  secondary  sounds 
would  otherwise  have  been  made. 

2.  The  absence  from  the  above  list  of  certain  sounds  that 
existed  in  one  family  or  the  other  or  in  both  is  to  be  well 
noted.  No  root  common  to  the  two  idioms  containing  the 
y  sound  originally  has  been  discovered.  It  was  noticed  in 
the  foregoing  discussion  that  roots  with  i/  as  one  of  their  ele- 
ments were  not  numerous  in  either  family.  Among  the 
Proto-Semitic  sounds  it  is  to  be  observed  that  fi  and  n  are 
absent  from  the  gutturals  and  t  from  the  sibilants.  Of  Proto- 
Aryan  sounds  dh  is  unrepresented  in  the  hypothetical  Aryo- 
Semitic  roots.     These  facts  lead  us  to  sugro-est  here  that  if  the 


*oo^ 


1  The  Proto-Semitic  sounds  are  represented  by  Hebrew  characters  ;  113  is,  of 
course,  unpointed.  No  satisfactory  transcription  has  yet  been  devised  for  y.  I 
have  adopted  that  most  employed  in  Germany,  which  is  not  to  be  confounded 
with  the  rough  breathing. 


74         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

theory  of  the  development  of  the  secondary  sounds  is  true, 
the  correctness  of  the  comparison  of  roots  is  confirmed  in  a 
remarkable  manner ;  while,  if  the  comparison  of  roots  should 
prove  to  be  successful,  the  truth  of  the  theory  of  secondary 
sounds  will  have  been  demonstrated. 

3.  It  will  Ije  obserred  that  these  phonetic  representatives 
are  also  in  most  cases  approximate  phonetic  equivalents. 

In  this  connection  it  will  be  necessary  to  notice  arguments 
that  have  been  made  against  the  likelihood  of  hypothetical 
Aryo-Semitic  roots  having  preserved  the  same  sounds  until 
an  accessible  period.  The  form  which  such  objections  are 
apt  to  assume  in  the  minds  of  scientists  may  be  exemplified 
by  the  following  citations  from  Professor  Max  Miiller.i  The 
remarks  quoted  are  made  in  the  way  of  caution,  since,  as  we 
have  already  said.  Professor  Miiller  admits  the  possibility  of 
an  Aryo-Semitic  affinity,  and  holds  earnestly  to  the  scientific 
legitimacy  of  the  widest  comparisons  among  the  various  fam- 
ilies of  speech.  After  speaking  of  the  vagueness  of  current 
Semitic  roots  as  an  obstacle  to  just  comparison,  he  says  :  "  I 
have  by  no  means  exhausted  all  the  influences  that  would 
naturally,  nay,  necessarily,  have  contributed  towards  produc- 
ing the  differences  between  the  radical  elements  of  Aryan 
and  Semitic  speech,  always  supposing  that  the  two  sprang 
originally  from  the  same  source.  Even  if  we  excluded  the 
ravages  of  phonetic  decay  from  that  early  period  of  speech, 
we  should  have  to  make  ample  allowance  for  the  influence 
of  dialectic  variety.  We  know  in  the  Aryan  languages  the 
constant  play  between  gutturals,  dentals,  and  labials  (^quin- 
que,  Skr.  panka,  irevre,  Aeol.  TrifiTre,  Goth.  pimp}.  We  know 
the  dialectic  interchange  of  aspirate,  media,  and  tenuis,  which 
from  the  very  beginning  has  imparted  to  the  principal  chan- 
nels of  Aryan  speech  their  individual  character  (rpeU,  Goth. 
threis,  High  German  drei).  If  this,  or  much  more,  could 
happen  within  the  dialectic  limits  of  one  more  or  less  settled 
body  of  speech,  what  must  have  been  the  chances  beyond 
these  limits  ?  "     And  again  ;  "  We  know  that  words  which 

1  See  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop  (London,  1875),  VoL  iv.  p.  99-109. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         75 

have  identically  the  same  sound  in  Sanskrit,  Greek,  Latin, 
and  German,  cannot  be  the  same  words,  because  they  would 
contravene  those  phonetic  laws  that  made  these  languages  to 

differ  from  each  other The  same  applies,  only  with  a 

hundred-fold  greater  force,  to  words  in  Hebrew  and  Sanskrit. 
If  any  triliteral  root  in  Hebrew  were  to  agree  with  a  triliteral 
word  in  Sanskrit,  we  should  feel  certain  at  once  that  they  are 
not  the  same,  or  that  their  similarity  is  purely  accidental. 
Pronouns,  numerals,  and  a  few  imitative,  rather  than  pre- 
dicative, names  for  father,  mother,  etc.,  may  have  been  pre- 
served from  the  earliest  stage  by  the  Aryan  and  Semitic 
speakers;  but  if  scholars  go  beyond,  and  compare  such  words 
as  Hebrew  barak,  to  bless,  and  Latin  precari ;  Hebrew  lab, 
heart,  and  the  English  liver ;  Hebrew  melech,  king,  and  the 
Latin  mulcere,  to  smooth,  to  quiet,  to  subdue,  they  are  in 
great  danger,  I  believe,  of  proving  too  much." 

It  may  be  said,  in  general,  with  reference  to  such  strict- 
ures tliat  they  are  invalid,  because  the  question  is  not  one  of 
antecedent  probability,  but  of  direct  evidence.  The  comparer 
is  not  bound  to  assume  that  Aryo-Semitic  roots  will  appear 
with  the  same  sounds.  He  makes  his  investigations  among 
roots  having  the  same  primary  meaning  in  the  two  families, 
and  if  he  finds  that  a  large  number  of  such  forms  have  the 
same  or  similar  sounds  then  it  becomes  probable  that  they 
were  originally  the  same.  If  it  further  appears  that  the  es- 
sential part  of  what  must  have  been  the  primitive  working 
stock  of  ideas  of  the  two  systems  are  expressed  in  the  same 
or  similar  sounds  then  the  probability  amounts  almost  to 
moral  certainty.  As  was  said  at  the  opening  of  the  first 
chapter,  the  evidence  is  of  precisely  the  same  kind  as  that 
which  obtains  in  linguistic  comparison  generally. 

It  is  undeniable,  however,  that  there  is  some  plausibility 
in  the  arguments  above  cited  based  on  the  analogies  of  dia- 
lectic changes  within  other  spheres ;  and  those  arguments 
therefore  require  some  examination.  The  first  remark  to  be 
made  is,  that  there  seems  to  be  a  misconception  of  the  con- 
ditions of  a  proper  inquiry.     We  have  nothing  to  do,  in  the 


76        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

actual  comparison,  with  Hebrew  roots  and  Sanskrit  words. 
We  only  use  those,  along  with  the  other  Semitic  and  Aryan 
dialects,  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  Proto-Aryan  and 
Proto-Semitic  roots.  That  these  are  accessible,  if  strict  sci- 
entific methods  are  pursued,  there  is  no  doubt.  Now,  when 
these  are  obtained  we  have,  of  course,  still  two  separate  lan- 
guages. Supposing  them,  however,  to  have  come  from  the 
same  source,  we  cannot  tell  how  long  a  time  had  then 
elapsed  since  they  had  emerged  from  the  radical  stage.  A 
glance  at  the  difference  in  flectional  characteristics,  and  at 
the  developement  of  secondary  sounds  would  seem  to  show 
that  it  was  considerable.  That  it  was  not  necessarily  very 
long,  is  probable  from  the  consideration  that  the  formative 
principle  must  have  been  very  busily  at  work  in  those  early 
days  of  language,  and  must  have  evolved  new  phenomena 
with  great  rapidity.  These  are  the  conditions  with  which 
we  have  to  do,  and  not  those  assumed  by  the  critic. 

In  the  second  place,  the  inferences  from  Aryan  phonology 
are  somewhat  overdrawn.  Still  remembering  that  we  are 
dealing  with  roots  primarily  and  not  with  current  words,  we 
do  not  seem  to  see  the  same  prevailing  variation  and  inter- 
changing of  sounds  that  Professor  Miiller  speaks  of.  Let 
any  one  take  a  comparative  phonological  table  of  the  Aryan 
languages,  —  such,  for  example,  as  that  given  in  Curtius's 
Grundziige,— and  he  will  probably  be  struck  with  the  gen- 
eral correspondences  rather  than  with  the  variations.  There 
does  not  appear  to  be  a  "  constant  play  "  between  gutturals, 
dentals,  and  labials,  such  as  the  somewhat  exceptional  and 
still  puzzling  words  for  five  would  seem  to  indicate.  More- 
over, it  does  not  seem  quite  just  to  include  the  Teutonic 
languages  with  the  others  as  the  best  representative  of 
Aryan  phonology.  Taking  Sanskrit,  Greek,  and  Latin,  and 
with  them  any  form  of  Aryan  speech  that  is  not  Teutonic, 
it  is  certain  that  roots  (if  not  words)  occurring  among  them 
which  have  identically  the  same  sound  and  meaning  must  be 
the  same  roots.  Sound-shifting  in  the  mutes  is  not  a  regular, 
but  rather  an  exceptional,  sort  of  phonetic  change   in  the 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         77 

Aryan  tongues,  and  in  the  languages  of  the  world  at  large. 
The  vast  development  of  the  Teutonic  family  and  its  in- 
fluence on  history  and  civilization  have  given  its  dialects 
greater  prominence  among  the  Aryan  idioms.  Grimm's 
law  has  also  assumed  a  large  space  in  linguistic  discussion, 
on  account  of  its  intrinsic  interest  and  importance  in  the 
science  of  phonology.  But  its  relative  scope  within  the 
Aryan  sphere  does  not  entitle  us  to  assign  it  the  same 
Importance  in  general  questions  of  comparative  etymology. 
The  languages  which  have  remained  nearest  to  the  Proto- 
Aryan  type  are  free  from  the  regular  operation  of  this  prin- 
ciple ;  and  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  for  the  assumption 
that  the  Semitic  family  was  ever  subject  to  its  influence.  On 
the  whole,  therefore,  and  apart  from  the  evidence  of  actual 
comparison  of  roots,  there  is  no  reason  for  believing  that  the 
Aryans  and  Semites  had  varied  their  fundamental  sounds 
radically  at  the  period  represented  by  the  earliest  accessible 
forms.  We  have  seen  that  secondary  sounds  were  developed 
and  have  shown  how  they  may  be  reduced  to  their  primaries. 
In  the  third  place,  it  is  noticeable  that  a  concession  is 
made  in  the  above  criticisms  which  annuls  their  whole  force. 
When  it  is  said  that"  pronouns,  numerals,  and  a  few  imita- 
tive rather  than  predicative  names  for  father,  mother,  etc. 
have  been  preserved  from  the  earliest  stage,"  the  question 
arises.  How  do  we  know  this  ?  What  is  the  test  ?  Obviously 
only  phonetic  correspondence.  But  how  is  phonetic  corre- 
spondence possible  among  these  groups  of  words  if  radical 
changes  of  sound  had  inevitably  occurred  throughout  the  two 
systems  of  speech  ?  There  is  no  escape  from  the  force  of 
this  counter-criticism,  which  is  applicable  not  only  to  Pro- 
fessor Miiller,  but  to  a  large  number  of  other  glottologists, 
some  of  whom  are  much  less  favorable  than  he  to  the  legiti- 
macy of  such  investigations  as  the  present.  The  writer  may 
say  here  that,  for  his  own  part,  he  not  only  regards  as  ridicu- 
lous the  comparisons  cited  at  the  close  of  the  foregoing  ex- 
tract, but  also  does  not  think  very  highly  even  of  the  evidence 
drawn  from  pronouns,  numerals,  etc. 


78         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

In  connection  with  the  table  of  phonetic  representation 
above  presented,  this  subject  will  be  closed  with  the  following 
recapitulation : 

At  the  time  of  the  breaking  up  of  the  Aryan  family  it 
possessed  the  following  stock  of  consonants  :  '  (light  guttural 
breath),  k,  k,  §•,  gh,  g^,  gh^,  t,  d,  dh,  p,  bh,  s,  r  (0,  m, n,  y,  v. 
Of  these  the  following  sounds  are  represented  in  hypothetical 
Aryo-Semitic  remains  :  ',  k,  k,  g,  gh,  g^,'^  t,  d,  p,  bh,  s,  r  (^), 
m,  n,  V. 

At  the  time  of  the  breaking  of  the  Semitic  family,  it  pos- 
sessed the  following  stock  of  consonants :  it,  n,  3>,  n,  D,  p,  a,  n, 

t2,  T,  B,  a,  M3,  0,  2£,  t,  n,  b,  72,  3,  %  I  {=\  h,\  h,  k,k, g,  t,t,  d, 

p,  b,  s,  s'y  s,  z,  r,  I,  m,  n,  i/,  v).  Of  these  the  following  are 
represented  in  hypothetical  Aryo-Semitic  remains  :  N,  3>,  D,  p , 
5,n,0,n,  B,  3,115,  0,i2,b,-«,D,3,'). 

i  In  comparison  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  distinguish  g^  and  g. 


CHAPTER   IV. 


MORPHOLOGY   OF   ROOTS. 


The  stock  of  sounds  possessed  by  each  of  the  two  systems 
before  its  breaking  up  into  dialects  was  given  at  the  close  of 
the  last  chapter.  Any  verbal  forms  in  these  languages  that 
are  to  be  compared  must  first  be  reduced  to  these  simple 
phonetic  elements.  I  have  also  stated  that  there  were  two 
principles  which  must  determine  the  choice  of  comparable 
forms  :  first,  the  primary  signification  of  each  must  be  shown 
to  be  the  same  ;  secondly,  each  term  to  be  compared  must  be 
reduced  to  the  form  it  possessed  before  the  system  of  speech 
containing  it  (Proto-Semitic  or  Proto-Aryan)  became  broken 
up  into  different  dialects.  Keeping  these  principles  in  view, 
we  have  to  pi'oceed  to  an  analysis  and  comparison  of  the 
words  in  the  two  systems  that  seem  worthy  hypothetically  of 
such  treatment.  It  will  be  necessary,  however,  to  begin  the 
investigation  by  showing  how  we  are  to  deal  with  the  living 
elements  of  language,  whose  seemingly  endless  diversity 
would  appear  to  forbid  any  attempt  to  harmonize  them.  In 
both  districts  of  speech,  and  especially  in  the  Semitic,  we 
seem  to  be  wandering  about  in  a  vast  wilderness,  through 
which  the  explorer  moves  in  a  hopeless  entanglement  of 
bewilderment  and  confusion,  never  reaching  a  meeting-place 
for  the  paths  that  either  lead  no-whither,  or  cross  one 
another  perpetually,  without  beginning  and  without  end. 
It  will  be  needful  to  show  that  some  central  elevation  may 
be  gained  from  which  we  may  look  down  upon  this  "  mighty 

79 


80  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

maze,"  and  see  that  it  is  "  not  without  a  plan  "  ;  from  which 
we  shall  be  able  to  see  that  the  paths  which  are  interrupted 
by  so  many  obstacles,  interposed  by  the  careless  ages,  still 
keep  on  their  course,  whether  converging  or  diverging,  and 
run  from  side  to  side  of  the  great  wilderness.  In  plainer 
language,  it  will  be  incumbent  on  us,  knowing  how  the 
current  terms  of  each  idiom  may  be  referred  to  their  proper 
stems,  and  further  to  their  conventional  so-called  roots,  to 
show  according  to  what  laws  of  formation  the  "roots"  them- 
selves may  be  analyzed  into  their  simplest  expressions. 

A  root  has  been  well  defined  by  Curtius  as  "  the  significant 
combination  of  sounds  which  remains  when  everything  form- 
ative and  accidental  has  been  stripped  away  from  a  given 
word."  1  In  inflectional  languages,  at  least,  such  so-called 
roots  do  not  appear  clearly  at  the  first  showing  ;  and  the 
only  way  of  arriving  at  them  is  obviously  to  make  sure  that 
the  forms  to  be  examined  are  primary  and  not  derivative, 
and  then  by  a  thorough  analysis  of  them,  with  a  careful 
application,  if  need  be,  of  the  known  phonetic  laws  of  the 
language  in  question,  to  eliminate  in  each  case  the  invariable 
significant  term  from  the  variable  and  unessential  suffix, 
prefix,  or  infix.  When  this  is  done,  however,  we  find  that 
in  many  cases  the  process  of  analysis  is  not  fairly  complete. 
In  both  great  families  of  speech  are  still  left  multitudes  of 
similar  roots,  with  similar  meanings,  whose  relations  to  one 
another  it  is  the  duty  of  students  to  determine.  In  har- 
mony with  what  we  would  naturally  suspect  with  regard  to 
the  growth  of  living  speech,  it  is  found  that  the  primitive 
stock  of  roots  at  the  command  of  the  earliest  speakers  was 
enlarged  according  to  need  by  internal  changes  or  external 
additions.  The  modifying  or  formative  elements  are  seen  to 
be  attached  with  equal  freedom  and  regularity  to  all  these 
variant  similar  forms,  showing  that  these  forms  are  inde- 
pendent of  one  another.  This  is  not  the  proper  place  for  an 
extended   exhibition  of  the   evidence  in  favor  of  such   a 

1  Grundziige  d.  griechischen  Etymologie  (5th  ed.,  1879),  p.  45  ;  cf.  p.  43  f.,  or 
in  the  English  translation  (4th  ed.  London,  1875,  1876),  Vol.  i.  p.  58;  cf.  55 f. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  81 

doctrine.  "We  shall  presently  have  to  cite  groups  of  words 
in  each  family  that  will  illustrate  the  position  here  assumed. 
Meanwhile,  it  will  be  enough  to  say  that  a  twofold  distinction 
has  to  be  made  with  regard  to  the  forms  under  discussion ; 
and  that  by  the  common  consent,  if  not  always  by  the  verbal 
agreement,  of  leading  etymologists.  First,  we  must  dis- 
tinguish secondary  from  primary  roots,  or  discriminate  forms 
that  seem  to  have  been  developed  out  of  earlier  ones  from 
those  which  we  cannot  reduce  to  prior  conditions.  Secondly, 
we  must  note  a  difference  between  absolute  and  relative 
roots  ^ ;  remembering  that  in  many  cases  analysis  brings  us 
at  last  to  forms  which  it  is  impossible  to  regard  as  the  exact 
ultimate  expression  of  the  radical  idea  ;  since,  for  example, 
the  combinations  arrived  at  are  sometimes  unpronounceable, 
and  sometimes  appear  in  a  slightly  different  form  in  different 
dialects  of  the  same  family.  This  latter  distinction,  however, 
is  evidently  not  to  be  made  use  of  practically,  and  must  only 
be  kept  in  mind  as  a  constant  warning  against  the  temptation 
to  fancy  that  we  can  always  succeed  in  harmonizing  the  form 
and  substance  of  language  according  to  their  original  iden- 
tity. But  the  principle  of  the  existence  of  both  primary  and 
secondary  roots  is  of  vital  importance  in  glottological  re- 
search, and  much  of  what  we  have  yet  to  say  will  be  simply 
an  attempt  to  trace  its  manifestations  in  Aryan  and  Semitic 
speech. 

"We  shall  first  deal  with  the  current  roots  of  the  Aryan 
family.  The  discussion  of  this  subject  will  be  necessarily 
short ;  and  the  reader  is  referred  for  a  full  presentation  of 
all  sides  of  the  question  to  what  has  been  written  by  such 
eminent  etymologists   as   Pott,^  Curtius,^  and   Fick.*     "We 

'  This  distinction,  adopted  by  Curtius,  was  first  made  in  these  terms  by  Pott. 
Etymologische  Forschungcn  (2d  ed.),  VoL  ii.  p.  246. 

^  Etymologische  Forschungen  (2d  ed.),  VoL  ii.  p.  225  ff. 

8  Op.  cit ,  pp.  .31-70,  English  translation,  pp.  40-90. 

*  Verglcichendes  Worterbuch  d.  indogerraanischen  Sprachen(3ded.,  1874-76), 
VoL  iv.  pp.  1-120.  This  acute  and  ingenious  etymologist  attempts  to  show  at 
length  that  Indo-European  ultimate  roots  fall  under  three  classes:  1.  those 
which  consist  of  a  more  vowel  (a,  i,  u)  ;  2.  those  formed  of  the  vowel  a  -f  a 


82  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

shall  give  here  the  principles  which  seem  to  be  most  surely 
established  with  regard  to  the  verbal  or  predicative  roots. 
Those  who  are  familiar  with  the  late  ingenious  theorizing 
on  the  subject  will  see  that  we  hold  a  position  as  conserva- 
tive as  is  possible  to  any  one  not  belonging  to  that  obstructive 
sect  of  glottologists  who  refuse  to  analyze  the  current  roots 
of  any  system  of  speech  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no 
development  within  that  sphere  of  language. 

In  analyzing  the  Indo-European  roots  we  must  liave  regard 
to  a  distinction  which  divides  them  into  two  great  classes. 
We  must  distinguish  between  those  forms  in  which  new 
elements  have  been  added  to  the  old,  and  those  in  which  the 
old  have  been  simply  modified.  Both  of  these  processes  of 
change  or  development  were  energetically  carried  on,  after 
the  breaking  up  of  the  Aryan  household,  in  every  branch  of 
the  family ;  but  their  operation  may  also  be  traced  more  or 
less  clearly  within  that  stock  of  root-forms  which  was  the 
linguistic  property  of  all  in  common. 

First,  as  to  the  development  of  new  roots  through  modifi- 
cation of  the  old,  without  addition.  Here  we  have  inde- 
pendent Indo-European  roots  arisin<r, 

(1)  Througli  the  modification  of  a  vowel  in  the  original 
form.  Thus  the  vowel  a  interchanges  with  i,  as  in  the  root 
dik^  to  show,  as  compared  with  dak  (represented  in  ScSdaKo) 
and  Lat.  doceo')  ;  in  di.  to  divide,  and  da;  pi,  to  drink,  and  pa. 

consonant  (as  ad,  ap,  as)  ;  3.  those  made  up  of  a  consonant  or  double  consonant 
+  the  vowel  a  {da,  pa,  sa,  sta,  spa,  sna).  We  have  space  for  only  two  or  three 
brief  criticisms  of  this  theory.  First,  to  be  formally  accurate,  classes  one  and 
three  ought  to  be  brought  together.  Ko  root,  and,  in  fact,  no  independent  artic- 
ulate sound  can  consist  of  a  vowel  alone ;  the  spiritus  lenis  preceding  the  vowel 
sound  is  a  consonant.  Second,  the  universal  elimination  of  i  and  ti  from  classes 
two  and  three  does  not  seem  justified  by  the  examples  given.  There  are  some 
roots  in  which  these  sounds  cannot  be  shown  to  bo  secondary  ;  e.g.  in  di  to 
hasten,  pri  to  love,  di  to  shine,  the  i  cannot  easily  be  reduced  to  a  ;  nor  can  a 
like  origin  be  found  for  the  m  in  su  to  beget,  hhu  to  be,  ru  (lu)  to  separate,  or^^u 
to  join.  Third,  there  arc  many  cases  in  which  a  vowel  cannot  be  shown  to  have 
been  the  original  closing  sound  ;  thus,  mar  to  rub,  grind,  in  which  the  notion 
of  ])hysical  action  is  inherent,  is  probably  not  developed,  as  Fick  claims,  from 
ma,  to  diminish  ;  nor  can  an  earlier  vowel-ending  root  be  well  found  for  vas  {us) 
tc  bum,  spak  to  sec,  hhar  to  bear,  vid  to  know,  y<v)  to  honor. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  83 

Less  frequently,  but  as  clearly,  a  is  obscured  into  u,  as  in 
mud,  to  be  lively,  compared  with  mad ;  bJiaj,  to  enjoy,  share 
in  (^fungor},  as  related  tohlwg  (e-(^ay-ov). 

(2)  Through  the  intensification  or  strengthening  of  a 
vowel  sound.  To  this  influence,  and  not  to  the  introduction 
of  a  new  vocal  element,  we  must  ascribe  such  developments 
as  that  of  div  (dyu),  to  shine,  from  du,  to  burn  (haiw  for 
BaF-io))  ;  and  siv,  to  sew,  from  sii. 

(3)  Through  the  transposition  of  sounds.  The  only  cases 
in  which  this  has  probably  occurred  are  a  few  in  which  r  is 
one  of  the  sounds ;  thus  arg-,  to  be  bright,  has  become  rag-^ 
to  color  ;  and  arbh  (a\^-atW),  to  obtain,  has  changed  into 
rabh  (XafM^-dvco) ,  to  take  hold  of. 

In  class  first  we  cannot  appeal  with  confidence  to  estab- 
lished laws  of  phonetic  change,  if  we  wish  to  determine,  in 
any  given  case,  which  of  the  double  or  multiple  forms  is  the 
earliest. 

Secondly,  we  must  consider  those  roots  which  differ  from 
similar  ones  by  the  possession  of  additional  elements. 

(1)  We  find  the  additional  factor  at  the  beginning  of  the 
form.  The  only  sound  that  seems  to  play  this  part  in  the 
Indo-European  is  s.  Its  occurrence  there  is  limited  to  a  few 
cases  ;  though  in  the  subsequent  divided  life  of  its  several 
dialects  such  a  use  or  disuse  of  s  became  much  more  common. 
The  root  nu,  to  float,  is  clearly  Proto-Aryan  ;  but  so  also  is  the 
kindred  snu.  The  root  start,  to  sound,  was  also  heard  along 
with  the  related  tan,  to  stretch,  just  as  (n6vo<i  is  found  in 
Greek  in  company  with  rovo^;. 

There  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  to  suppose  that  new 
Indo-European  roots  were  ever  developed  by  the  infixing  of 
a  new  sound  in  the  old.  The  only  sound  for  which  such  a 
function  can  be  claimed  plausibly  is  n.  But  if  we  examine 
all  the  forms  in  which  this  additional  sound  occurs,  it  will 
be  found  that  the  two  hypothetical  roots  are  not  used  inde- 
pendently of  one  another  to  form  separate  verbal  and  nominal 
stems,  but  occur  side  by  side  as  the  basis  of  derivatives  that 
evidently  spring  from  the  same  source.     They  are  thus  shown 


84  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

to  be  variations  of  one  another,  rather  than  distinct  roots 
with  a  separate  range  of  development  and  an  appreciable 
difference  of  meaning.  Thus  the  root  agh,  to  press,  com- 
press, is  evidently  the  same  as  angh ;  for  while  the  former  ap- 
pears in  the  nearest  Sanskrit  derivative,  agha^  oppressing,  evil, 
or  as  substantive,  affliction,  sin,  as  well  as  in  the  hometymons  ^ 
words  a;^09,  grief ;  ex^^  (==  constrictor,  the  Sanskrit  ahi), 
serpent,  and  the  Sanskrit  a/m,  narrow,  the  latter  is  as  evi- 
dent in  the  corresponding  Sanskrit,  ah/ias,  affliction,  sin ;  the 
Latin  anguis,  serpent,  as  well  as  in  angnstus,  narrow,  and 
the  German  eng;  angor,  anxius,  and  the  Germ,  angst.  This 
we  give  as  a  fair  specimen  of  the  whole  class,  and  accordingly 
assume  for  the  Indo-European  system,  that  the  insertion  of 
an  n  sound  is  nothing  more  than  the  nasalization  of  the  pre- 
ceding vowel,  rather  accidental  than  essential  to  the  autonomy 
of  the  root.  It  is,  perhaps,  a  phenomenon  similar  in  origin  to 
the  epithetic  v  in  Greek  (^eXeyev  <  eXeye),  the  nunnation  in 
Arabic,  and  the  miramation  in  Assyrian,  and  does  not  corres- 
pond to  an  additional  etymological  element.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  probable  that  in  many  cases  the  n  was  heard  in  the 
original  root,  and  the  form  containing  it  would  have  to  be 
regarded  as  the  earlier  one,  from  which  the  other  arose 
through  the  weakening  of  the  sound  by  denasalization,  till  it 
disappeared  entirely  in  some  of  the  forms ;  though  within  the 
Indo-European  sphere  this  process  gave  rise  to  no  new  roots, 
in  the  strict  sense  of  this  term.'-^ 

1  This  much  needed  term,  with  the  corresponding  "  hometymon,"  the  writer 
owes  to  the  invention  of  Mr.  S.  R.  Winans  of  Princeton  College,  his  friend  and 
companion  in  philological  studies. 

2  The  lately  developed  theory  of  nasal  vowels  casts  some  light  upon  the  ultimate 
origin  of  such  cases  as  those  cited  above.  It  was  first  suggested  by  Brugman  in 
Cnrtius's  Studien,  Vol.  ix.,  and  has  since  been  rectified  and  extended  by  the 
same  scholar,  and  by  others.  See  the  admirable  statement  by  Maurice  Bloom- 
field  in  the  American  Journal  of  Philology,  Sept.  1880,  p.  292  ff.  The  main 
position  is  that  in  the  Aryan  system  there  is  a  full  set  of  nasal  vowels,  answering 
to  n,  m,  as  Skr.  r,  I.  answer  to  r,  I  in  the  Unguals.  In  Proto-Aryan  these  are  rep- 
resented by  n>  m.  The  n  and  m  remain  consonantal  before  vowels,  but  before 
consonants  they  take  the  vocalized  sound  which  is  heard  under  like  conditions 
in  English  and  other  languages,  as  in  heavenly,  handsomely  (=:  hevnli,  hansmli). 
In  Sanskrit  n  becomes  a  and  an,  m  becomes  a  and  am.  In  Greek,  n  is  a  and 
av,  m  is  a  and  o/u.  In  Latin  they  regularly  appear  as  en  and  em ;  in  Gothic  and 
High  German  as  un  and  um.  In  Greek  and  Sanskrit,  therefore,  an  original  an 
or  am  may  appear  as  a  mere  vowel  a  in  certain  inflections. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  85 

(2)  We  have  the  most  important  class  of  root-distinctions 
in  those  forms  which  differ  from  similar  ones  in  having  the 
additional  sound  at  the  end.  These  somids,  which  are  quite 
various  and  usually  distinguishable  with  clearness,  have  been 
named  by  Curtius^  root-determinatives.  This  term,  which 
would  properly  indicate  a  radical  significant  element,  we 
shall  adopt  throughout  this  discussion  as  applying  to  any 
additional  sound  in  either  family,  under  the  guise  of  a  prefix, 
infix,  or  suffix,  which  is  not  a  mere  expansion  or  strengthening 
of  the  root,  or  a  mere  unessential  variation  of  a  previously 
existing  element  through  ordinary  laws  of  phonetic  change. 
The  justness  of  this  comprehensive  distinction  we  shall  show 
by-and-by.  Here  it  is  in  order  to  enumerate  the  letters  that 
seem  to  play  this  part  at  the  end  of  Indo-European  roots. 

The  only  vowel  that  appears  as  a  post-determinative  in 
undoubted  Indo-European  roots  is  a,  which  is  found  in  a  few 
secondary  forms,  as  dliya,  to  see,  from  dhi ;  gna,  to  know, 
from  gan^  (Eng.,  ken'). 

As  to  the  determinative  consonants,  taking  them  in  the 
order  of  the  Sanskrit  alphabet,  we  have  first  ^  A;,  k,  which  ap- 
pears to  us  as  certain  only  in  the  roots  mark,  to  touch,  stroke, 
{mulc-ere},  as  compared  with  mar,  to  rub  ;  dark,  to  see,  as 
related  to  dar,  (Sanskrit  and  Lithuanian)  ;  dak,  to  bite,  as 
compared  with  da,  to  divide,  tear  (whence  da-nt,  tooth,}  ; 
bhark,  to  shine,  (^opK6<i,  bright},  as  related  to  bhar,  itself  a 
very  early  development  from  bha.  It  appears,  moreover,  at 
the  end  of  many  lengthened  onomatopoetic  roots,  whose 
etymological  relations  are,  of  course,  not  so  clearly  definable. 

g  appears  as  a  determinative  in  yug,  to  join,  as  compared 
with  1JU  ;  marg,  stroke,  wipe  (o-fMopy-vvfit,,  milk},  as  related 
with  7nar  ;  bharg,  to  shine  (^^Xeyco,  fiag-ro,  bleach},  in  con- 
nection with  bhar,  and  a  few  others.  Pick,  in  his  discussion 
of  these  points,^  calls  attention  to  the  existence  of  so  many 

1  In  Kuhn's  Zeitschrift  fur  vergL  Sprachforschung,  Vol.  iv.  211  fF.  See  his 
Grundzuge  (5th  ed.,  1879),  p.  69  ;  English  translation  (of  4th  ed.),  p.  89. 

-  Fick,  op.  cit.,  iv.  p.  51  ff.,  cites  a  large  number  of  supposed  cases  for  a  deter- 
minative k,  but  most  of  these  seem  to  rest  on  no  sure  etymological  foundation. 

*  Op.  cit.,  iv.  p.  58  ff. 


86  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

roots  that  differ  from  similar  forms  only  in  having  g-  instead 
of  k  at  the  end,  and  assumes  that  g-  in  such  cases  is  only  a 
weakening  of  k.  This  is  hardly  probable.  We  find  no  such 
regular  concurrence  of  p  and  b  in  secondary  forms,  nor  of  d 
and  t ;  and  it  is  not  likely  that  k  alone  of  the  hard  mutes 
would  thus  be  softened,  g  is  also  an  independent  Indo- 
European  sound,  of  at  least  as  much  radical  importance  as  k. 
It  seems  best,  therefore,  to  assume  that  the  affinity  of  the 
ideas  to  be  expressed,  was  conveyed  to  the  ear  by  the  employ- 
ment of  similar  sounds. 

Out  of  the  many  cases  cited  by  Fick  ^  in  which  gh  is  sup- 
posed to  be  a  determinative,  we  can  regard  as  well  established 
only  dhargh  (Eng.  drag^,  as  related  with  dhar,  to  bear. 

t  is  plainly  a  determinative  in  kart,  to  cleave,  as  compared 
with  kar  (=  skar,  sheary  ;  in  pat,  to  rule,  as  related  with  pa, 
to  protect ;  and,  perhaps,  in  pat,  to  attain  to  {peto,/ind),  as 
connected  with  pa,  to  obtain. 

d  seems  to  appear  certainly  as  a  determinative  only  in  a 
few  roots.  One  clear  case  is  that  of  mard,  to  crush,  related 
to  mar.  For  sad,  to  sit,  there  appears  evidence  of  a  primary 
sa,  in  Sanskrit  ava-si-ta,  literally,  situated,  and  Latin  si-tus, 
po-si-tus,  placed  ;  7nad,  to  measure,  as  compared  with  ma,  is 
also  probably  Proto-Aryan. 

dh  is  found  as  a  determinative  in  a  few  well-proven  cases : 
Jcudh,  to  conceal,  may  be  compared  with  ku  (5^),  yudh, 
fight  (join  battle),  with  yu,  to  join. 

Final  n  in  roots  appears  to  be  often  a  mere  nasalized  vowel. 
We  may  compare  gan,  to  beget,  with  ga,  (as  in  <ye-yov-a, 
76-70-061?)  ;  tan,  to  stretch,  with  ta  (as  in  7a-T6<i,  rd-cn^')  ; 
man,  to  measure  (as  in  mensus),  with  ma. 

p  is  one  of  the  most  common  Proto-Aryan  determinatives, 
and  easily  recognized  in  most  cases.  We  may  bring  together 
ka'Q)  (kalp)  to  procure,  help,  and  kar,  to  make  ;  dap,  to  divide 
out,  and  da,  to  divide  ;  rip  Qip,  a-Xeicp-o)')  to  anoint,  and  ri 
(li  as  in  li-nere)  ;  sarp,  to  creep,  with  sar,  to  go. 

b  is  not  to  be  proved  as  an  independent  determinative  in 

1  Op.  cit.  iT.  p.  61  ff. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  87 

accessible  forms.  As  we  saw  in  our  last  Article,  its  place 
was  taken  by  bh  in  current  speech.  This  sound  occurs  at  the 
end  of  at  least  two  secondary  forms :  gharbh,  seize  (if  this 
is  the  original  of  the  Sanskrit  g-arbh,  g-rabh,  Eng.  grab),  as 
connected  with  g-har ;  stabk,  to  support,  as  compared  with 
sta,  to  stand. 

w,  like  n,  is  a  nasalized  vowel  in  g-am,  to  go,  cf.  ga  ;  dam, 
to  bind  (tame),  cf.  da ;  ram,  to  delight  in,  cf.  ra,  as  in  epa- 
fiac ;  dram,  to  run  (^Spofiof'),  cf.  dra  (ht-hpd-a-Koi),  and  a  few 
others. 

y  and  v  are  not  found  as  determinatives,  nor  indeed  as  final 
sounds  in  Proto-Aryan.  Being  semi-vowels,  they  would  not 
have  been  sufficiently  distinct  for  this  purpose.  They  were 
used  often,  however,  in  the  development  of  special  roots  in 
different  branches  of  the  family. 

r  is  a  very  common  llnal  letter  in  roots,  but  it  is  generally 
difficult  to  acknowledge  that  it  is  a  determinative  in  most  of 
the  cases  adduced  as  evidence.  Such  a  function  may  perhaps 
be  allowed  to  it  in  tar,  to  cross  over,  as  compared  with  ia,  to 
stretch;  in  dar,  to  burst  or  tear  open  (hepco,  tear),  as  related 
with  da,  to  divide,  and  it  appears  certain  in  star  (^stal),  to 
place  firmly  (Sanskrit  sthira,  firm  ;  German  starr,  stellen,), 
as  connected  with  sta,  to  stand. 

s  is  an  obvious  determinative  in  a  good  number  of 
instances.  Thus  we  may  associate  vaks  (English  loax),  to 
grow,  =  r«g°-s,  with  vag  (ug),  to  increase  (as  in  English 
eke  ;  German  auch)  ;  dhars,  to  be  confident  (Odpa-eiv, 
durst),  with  dhar,  to  hold  infirm)  ;  bhas,  to  shine  (found  in 
English  bare),  with  bha. 

In  the  foregoing  discussions  we  have  not  taken  account  of 
the  claim  made  by  Pott  ^  in  behalf  of  several  Proto-Aryan 
roots,  that  they  are  made  up  of  older  forms,  with  fragments 
of  other  words  prefixed.  Such  supposed  prefixes  are  mostly 
prepositions,  as  in  bhrag  (bharg),  to  shine,  as  compared 
with  rag  {arg),  of  the  same  meaning,  in  which  the  bh  repre- 
sents the  prepositions  abhi,  as  found  in  Sanskrit.  Other 
1  Etymologische  Forschungen  (2d  ed.),  Vol.  ii.  p.  297  ff. 


88  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

kinds  of  words  are  also  supposed  occasionally  to  perform  the 
same  office,  as  the  adverb  su,  well,  in  svad,  to  taste  (ayS-ayw, 
'f)hv<i,  sweety,  made  up  of  su  and  ad,  to  eat.  Some  of  the 
alleged  instances  of  such  combinations  are  very  plausible, 
and  many  are  not  so.  For  full  discussion  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject, the  reader  is  referred  to  Curtius'  Grundziige,^  where  the 
theory  is,  we  think,  shown  to  be  untenable. 

The  results  of  the  investigation  are  briefly  these :  1.  Of 
those  forms  which  differ  from  others  in  showing  an  additional 
element,  there  is  only  one  group  that  has  this  at  the  begin- 
ning, namely,  those  in  which  s  appears  as  the  added  factor. 
2.  There  is  good  reason  to  hold  that  no  root  is  modified  by 
the  insertion  of  any  letter :  the  infix  n  we  may  call  a  stem- 
determinative,  rather  than  a  root-determinative.  3.  We 
have  found  the  vowel  a  used  as  a  post-determinative,  and 
also  nearly  every  one  of  the  original  Indo-European  conso- 
nants. 

If  we  compare  the  various  forms  in  which  the  additional 
letter  occurs,  it  will  be  seen  that  these  added  sounds  are  of 
different  degrees  of  significant  value,  and  that  the  same 
sounds  are  not  always  of  equal  importance  in  this  respect. 
Thus  the  vowel  a  seems  to  have  usually  little  modifying 
power;  but  7nna  (==mana),  to  think  upon,  remember,  is 
clearly  discriminated  by  it  from  the  more  general  man.  Again, 
the  added  nasals  seem  sometimes,  like  the  inserted  n,  to 
modify  stems,  rather  than  roots;  but  in  dam,  to  subdue, 
tame,  we  have  an  obvious  specializing  of  da,  to  bind.^ 
Again,  the  initial  s  (as  in  snii,  to  float,  compared  with  nu), 
gives  or  takes  away  no  apparent  force,  in  most  cases,  from 
the  shorter  form ;  and  for  this  reason,  as  well  as  on  account 
of  the  general  uncertain  tenure  of  the  s  in  various  languages 
of  the  family,  Fick  and  others  choose  to  regard  the  longer 
form  as  the  earlier,  and  so  do  not  consider  5  as  a  determinu- 

1  See  in  the  fifth  German  edition,  p.  31  fF.  English  translation  (of  4th 
cd),  p.  38 ff. 

^  Fick,  in  his  classification,  to  which  we  have  been  very  much  indebted,  gives 
m  and  n  a  place  by  themselves  as  being  of  less  importance  than  the  other  deter- 
minatives. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  89 

tive  at  all  iu  such  cases.  It  is  impossible  to  prove,  however, 
that  the  s  was  really  dropped  from  the  beginning  of  any 
Proto-Aryan  root ;  and  it  would  seem  to  be  more  in  accordance 
with  analogy  in  root-formation  that  the  shorter  form  should 
have  preceded.  But  we  think  we  can  show,  in  one  case  at 
least,  that  the  s  is  a  true  determinative,  and  the  shorter  the 
more  primitive  form.  The  root  tan,  already  alluded  to, 
means  to  stretch.  But  it  yields  derivatives  which,  along 
with  this  sense,  also  express  the  notion  of  sounding.  Thus 
Skr.  tana  and  Gr.  t6vo<;  mean  both  stretching  and  a  tone; 
and  Quintilian  ^  shows  us  how  this  is  possible  when  he  uses 
the  Latin  word  tenor  (properly  a  sustained  course)  in  the 
sense  of  accent  or  tone.  Going  a  little  further,  we  find  that 
in  Latin  ton-o  means  to  thunder,  our  own  English  word  being 
radically  the  same,^  as  also  does  the  Skr.  tan  Qanyati). 
Now  we  take  up  the  root  stan  to  sound,  or,  more  specifically, 
to  make  a  deep  sound.  This  is  found  in  the  Skr.  stan 
Qstanati)  ;  Gr.  ariv-o),  to  groan,  as  well  as  in  the  modern 
German  stohnen.  Curtius,^  who  connects  the  Lat.  tono  with 
tan,  to  stretch,  hesitates  to  associate  the  latter  with  stan,  to 
sound,  against  the  opinion  of  Pott,  Benfey,  Corssen,  Walter, 
and  Grassmann.  But  the  fact  that  the  Skr.  stan  {stanayati) 
means  also  to  thunder,  as  well  as  to  groan,  bringing  itself 
alongside  of  tan  in  this  secondary  sense,  seems  to  complete 
the  analogy  between  the  two  roots.  Thus  tan,  to  stretch, 
came  to  express  the  idea  of  a  sustained  or  resonant  sound ; 
while  stan  was  specialized  into  the  notion  of  a  deep,  heavy 
sound,  the  noise  of  thunder  being  equally  well  associated  with 
both.  In  this  instance,  then,  5  is  clearly  a  determinative ; 
though,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  the  only  initial  sound  so  used 
in  Proto-Aryan. 

The   question   naturally   arises,  in   connection   with   this 
sound,  as  also  with   any  of   the  final  determinatives,  Is  it 

1  Inst.  Orat.,  i.  5.  22,  26.     See  Harper's  Latin  Dictionary,  s.  v. 

2  Max  ^Iiillcr,  Lectures  on  the  Science  of  Language  (Am.  ed.),  i.  364,  warns 
Ds  against  tlie  fancy  that  the  word  thunder  is  onomatopoetic. 

8  Grundziige  (5th  ed.),  p.  217. 


90  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

necessary  to  regard  any  of  the  forms  as  more  primitive  than 
the  others  ?  For  all  we  know,  may  not  all  the  variant  roots 
have  arisen  side  by  side,  without  reflection,  each  with  its 
own  special  signiUcance,  according  as  each  idea  seemed  to 
require  its  fitting  expression  ?  Or  another  position  may  be 
taken,  as  by  Max  Miiller,i  namely,  that  the  longer  forms  in 
any  group  (as  mark,  marg-,  mard,  and  mardli)  may  gradually 
have  dropped  their  distinctive  features,  leaving  only  the 
constant  formula  (as  mar^  to  express  the  general  notion. 
These  points  are  not  of  so  much  importance  in  our  compara- 
tive study  as  they  might  seem  at  first  sight ;  for  in  either 
case,  if  we  find  the  same  constant  formula  employed  to 
express  the  same  idea  in  both  Aryan  and  Semitic,  we  are 
entitled  to  use  the  fact  for  verbal  comparison  just  as  freely 
as  a  similar  correspondence  between  Sanskrit  and  Greek 
might  be  employed.  But  the  questions  are  worthy  of  the 
attention  which  our  space  will  allow. 

As  to  the  first,  it  should  be  answei'ed  that  human  language 
is  not  merely  a  system,  co-ordinate  and  harmonious,  but  also 
historically  a  growth  or  a  development  from  the  very  begin- 
ning, even  in  its  radical  or  uninflectional  stage.  The  hortus 
siccus  exhibited  by  Renan  in  his  Origine  du  Langage,  with 
its  dead  roots  and  withered  stems,  cannot  fairly  represent 
the  actual  state  of  primitive  speech.  No  one  can  compare 
any  group  of  roots,  of  similar  forms  and  meanings,  in  any 
system  of  speech,  without  seeing  that  they  bear  upon  their 
very  face  the  evidence  of  a  change  in  representative  sounds 
corresponding  to  a  change  in  the  ideas  to  be  represented, — 
unless  the  observer  is  hampered  by  some  philosophical  theory 
requiring  him  to  maintain  the  contrary  opinion. 

The  second  theory  does  not  deny  a  living  progress  in 
primitive  speech,  but  holds  to  a  generalizing  of  forms  with 
special  meanings,  rather  than  a  specializing  of  ideas  already 
general.  We  would  say  that  the  question  here  is  not  con- 
nected with  the  influence  of  phonetic  decay ;  it  has  to  do 
with  the  formation  of  the  very  elements  of  speech.     Now, 

2  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,  Vol.  iv.  p.  129. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAX  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  91 

experience  shows  that  such  forms  arise  by  composition  and 
addition  in  all  processes  that  are  akin  to  root-making. 
Again,  as  Curtius  remarks,^  the  fuller  forms  are  the  later 
ones.  The  process  of  expansion  in  roots  can  actually  be 
watched  as  we  trace  the  growth  of  the  different  members  of 
the  family  after  its  breaking  up.^ 

Another  question  of  some  importance  remains.  Can  we 
get  at  the  significance  of  these  determinatives  ?  Not  in  all 
cases,  nor  in  most.  We  ought  to  decide,  however,  as  to 
what  sort  of  significance  they  may  bear.  Curtius  says  ^  that 
if  the  theory  of  a  simultaneous  development  of  '"  clusters  of 
roots  "  is  rejected,  we  must  assume  that  tliere  was  an  expan- 
sion of  roots  by  composition,  in  which  the  added  elements 
would  have  to  be  considered  as  weather-worn  stems.  But  that 
seems  hardly  necessary  in  all  cases.  In  later  forms,  after 
the  original  creative  faculty  had  lost  its  force,  such  would 
doubtless  be  the  character  of  the  determinatives ;  and  in  the 
suffix  dh,  at  least,  there  seems  to  be  good  reason  for  tracing 
a  connection  with  the  common  root  dha.  Such  also  may 
have  been  the  origin  of  the  determinative  p,  which  forms  a 
causative  in  some  Sanskrit  verbs,  and  serves  to  convey  the 
same  force  sometimes  as  the  final  sound  of  a  root.  Still, 
there  is  nothing  certain  about  these  cases,  and  in  most  in- 
stances not  even  can  a  plausible  conjecture  be  made.  There 
seems,  indeed,  no  reason  to  disbelieve  that  the  earliest  de- 
terminatives were  themselves  as  primary  as  the  roots  which 
they  modified,  and  that  they  stood  as  the  symbols  of  general 
qualifying  notions,  rather  than  as  fragments  of  previously 
existing  stems.  The  question  differs  completely  from  that 
which  relates  to  the  origin  of  the  inflective  elements,  for  each  of 
these  latter  has  a  definite  invariable  meaning.  In  considering 
root-formation  in  Proto-Semitic,  the  same  conclusion  appears 
also  inevitable  there  ;  and  a  close  study  of  the  latter  subject 
would,   we    think,   be   very   serviceable    to    Indo-European 

1  Grundziigc  (5th  ed.),  p.  66,  note  ;  cf.  p.  69,  note. 

2  Thus  the  root  sta  is  Proto-Aryan  ;  stand  is  Teutonic. 
8  Op.  cit.,  p.  69,  note;  English  trans.,  p.  90,  note. 


92  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

specialists,  as  tending  to  throw  light  on  the  workings  of  the 
mind  of  man  in  his  evolution  of  primitive  speech. 

It  only  remains  to  be  said,  in  this  connection,  that,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  any  true  Proto-Aryan  root  may  be  used  for 
purposes  of  comparison,  whether  it  be  primary  or  secondary. 
The  matter  is  one  of  scientific  etymology,  and  the  only 
restriction  to  be  set  in  the  choice  of  comparable  forms  is 
obviously  this  :  that  any  root  which  can  be  proved  to  have 
originated  in  any  single  one  of  the  three  great  divisions  of 
the  family,  the  Indo-Eranic,  Graeco-Italo-Keltic,  and  Slavo- 
Teutonic,^  must  be  rigorously  excluded.  Thus  it  would  be 
allowable  to  compare  the  root  bharg,  to  break,  as  well  as  the 
primary  bhar,  with  any  Semitic  form,  because  the  former 
root,  though  perhaps  not  to  be  found  in  Indo-Eranic,  occurs 
in  the  widely-divei'gent  Graeco-Italic  and  Slavo-Teutonic,  and 
therefore  is  probably  Proto-Aryan.  Again,  not  only  may 
the  primary  root  bha^  to  shine,  be  used  in  comparisons,  but 
also  its  secondary  bhar,  and  even  the  more  fully  expanded 
form  bharg-,  of  similar  meaning,  since  all  these  are  found  in 
all  the  divisions  of  tlie  family.  But  it  would  not  be  proper 
to  use  the  Teutonic  hlad,  to  lade,  or  g-ald,  to  be  worth,  since 
these  are  not  found  in  any  other  division. 

We  have  now  to  take  up  the  subject  of  the  morphology  of 
Proto-Semitic  roots.  The  problem  here  is  the  same  as  that 
presented  in  the  Proto-Aryan,  and  the  method  of  solving  it 
the  same  as  that  just  employed  for  the  latter  system.  The 
subject,  however,  is  one  of  greater  difficulty  and  obscurity,  and 
we  shall  not  be  able  to  get  much  light  upon  it  from  the  labors 
of  previous  investigators.  As  this  field  is  not  so  familiar  to 
linguistic  students  as  the  Indo-European  province,  we  shall 
exhibit  the  true  process  of  inquiry  a  little  more  in  detail. 

First,  of  course,  we  have  to  fix  the  true  criteria  of  a  Proto- 
Semitic  root.  It  is  manifest  that  we  must  begin  by  showing 
that  any  such  hypothetical  form  must  be  found  represented 
in  more  than  one  branch  of  that  family.  The  four  great 
<iivisions  we  take  to  be  the  Assy rio-Babylonian,^  the  Aramaic, 

^  The  writer  does  not  deny  the  correctness  of  the  more  fundamental  division 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  93 

the  Hebraic,  and  the  Arabo-Ethiopic,  with  their  respective 
dialects.  A  root  found  in  Arabo-Ethiopic  and  any  one  of  tlie 
other  three  branches,  is  certainly  Proto-Semitic  ;  a  root  found 
in  all  of  the  other  three  is  probably  so.  Now,  in  ascertaining  the 
true  roots,  whether  primary  or  secondary,  we  must,  of  course, 
have  respect  only  to  the  laws  of  Semitic  speech.  In  the  last 
Article  it  was  shown  that  of  the  phonetic  elements  of  that 
system  some  were  certainly  secondary.  But  it  must  be 
remembered  that  of  these  only  a  few  modified  sounds  were 
developed  after  the  breaking  up  of  the  family ;  and  it  is  to 
the  regular  phonetic  stock  employed  by  the  Semites  in  their 
common  home  that  any  hypothetical  root  must  be  referred. 
As  a  general  safeguard,  it  should  be  remembered  that  the 
question  before  us  at  present  is  purely  a  Semitic  one.  In 
the  analysis  of  roots  the  object  must  not  be  to  try  to  quad- 
rate them  with  the  Proto-Aryan,  but  to  see  what  results 
may  be  arrived  at  from  a  study  of  Semitic  morphology  alone, 
without  regard  to  the  phenomena,  or  even  the  existence,  of 
any  other  human  idiom.  The  fact  that  such  investigations 
have  usually  been  made  in  the  interest  of  a  reconciliation 
with  the  Aryan  system  has  tended  to  discredit  the  conclu- 
sions arrived  at  by  previous  inquirers. 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  any  one  who  takes  a  survey  of 
the  Semitic  field  is  the  remarkable  fact  that  all  the  roots  of 
that  system  of  speech  when  inflected  appear  in  a  triliteral 
form,  at  least  in  all  those  dialects  which  have  reached  their 
highest  fiectional  development.  This  phenomenon  is  un- 
doubted, and  expresses  an  undeniable  tendency  of  the  earliest 
speakers  to  make  all  the  roots  tri-consonantal,  however  they 

into  East  and  West  Aryan  ;  ho  only  holds  that  the  European  branches  repre- 
sent a  much  larger  number  of  the  oldest  dialects  of  the  system,  and  therefore, 
for  comparative  purposes,  should  count  for  more  than  the  Indo-Eranic  alone.  A 
like  remark  should  be  made  upon  the  classification  given  of  the  Semitic  family. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  southern  division,  represented  by  Arabic  proper, 
Himyaritic,  and  Ethiopic,  is  of  far  more  importance  as  a  Proto-Semitic  indicator 
than  any  one  of  the  northern  languages.  But  there  should  be  as  little  doubt 
that  the  members  of  the  northern  division,  taken  together,  must  count  for  more 
than  the  southern  alone,  in  the  comparison  of  roots.  Cf.  Schrader,  Zeitschrift 
d.  deutschen  morg.  Ges.,  Vol.  xxvii.  p.  401  ff. 


94  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

may  seem  to  have  disregarded  the  principle  in  some  cases, 
which  we  shall  notice  presently.  The  question  at  once 
arises  :  Must  we  hold  that  all  these  roots  were  tri-consonantal 
from  the  beginning,  and  that  the  apparent  exceptions  are 
only  degenerated,  shortened  forms  ;  or  do  any  of  the  roots 
show  peculiarities  that  would  lead  us  to  infer  that  they  have 
developed  from  more  elementary  conditions  ?  An  affirma- 
tive answer  seems  due  to  the  second  alternative ;  and,  though 
this  is  not  the  place  for  a  full  discussion  of  the  matter,  we 
shall  adduce  a  few  of  the  considerations  that  seem  to  point 
clearly  to  that  conclusion. 

First,  we  have  the  co-existence  of  a  large  number  of  roots 
of  similar  sound  and  related  meanings,  which  differ  from 
one  another  only  in  one  of  the  radicals.  Thus  (a)  the  first 
two  consonants  of  each  member  of  the  group  are  the  same, 
the  third  being  different  throughout  the  list ;  or  (Z>)  the  last 
two  radicals  of  some  roots  may  contain  the  constant  formula, 
the  first  being  the  variant ;  or  (c)  the  second  letter  may 
appear  as  additional,  the  first  and  third  representing  the 
essential  significant  combination.  This  would  seem  to  show 
that  the  forms  with  the  variant  letters  were  developed  from 
earlier  roots  represented  in  the  present  stage  of  the  language 
by  the  two  constant  letters  in  each  hometymous  group. 

Further,  we  have  still  more  conclusive  evidence  from  those 
hypothetical  forms  in  which  the  third  radical  is  the  same  as 
the  second.  Comparing  with  class  (a),  mentioned  above, 
we  find  that  in  nearly  all  those  groups  of  roots  which  agree 
with  one  another  in  the  first  two  consonants  and  differ  in 
the  last,  there  appear  forms  in  which  the  last  letter  is  not  a 
variant,  but  merely  the  second  repeated.  Moreover,  such 
forms  (giving  rise  to  the  so-called  'yy  stems)  are  generally 
more  comprehensive  in  meaning  than  the  related  roots  with 
variant  letters,  containing  the  generic  idea  whose  specific 
modifications  are  expressed  by  the  divergent  forms.  These 
facts  indicate  that  they  represent  an  earlier  expression  of 
thought  than  the  longer  roots,  and  this  is  naturally  obtained 
by  dropping  the  repeated  consonant.     In  other  words,  we 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  95 

infer  that  the  early  speakers  developed  these  assumed  tri- 
literals  from  earlier  biliterals  by  simply  repeating  the  second 
sound.  The  production  of  the  hometymous  forms  is  thus 
more  easily  accounted  for,  upon  any  theory  of  phonological  or 
morphological  symbolism,  than  if  we  were  to  suppose  that 
the  longer  forms  were  the  earliest.  In  fact,  the  latter  sup- 
position would  only  accord  with  the  theory  that  the  Proto- 
Semitic  language  was  not  a  growth  at  all,  but  an  institution 
founded  after  solemn  deliberation.  In  that  case  we  would 
have  to  suppose  that  the  primitive  Semites,  in  convention 
assembled,  passed  a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  no  one 
should  frame  and  pronounce  a  word  having  a  root  of  either 
more  or  less  than  three  legal  consonants.  For  we  must 
remember  that  these  forms  are  evidently  a  part  of  the  very 
oldest  stock  of  roots  in  the  whole  system  ;  and  unless  we 
assume  a  phonological  miracle,  it  is  impossible  to  believe 
that  such  an  elaborate  and  consistent  complexity  of  sounds 
could  be  the  first  expression  of  Semitic  thought,  especially 
when  the  combination  looks  so  much  like  a  mere  prolongation 
or  repetition  of  simpler  elements. 

Again,  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the  Semites  disliked 
the  close  repetition  of  the  same  sounds  rather  more  than 
other  peoples  did  ;  and  we  can  best  account  for  their  tolera- 
tion of  such  phenomena,  either  before  or  after  the  family 
separation,  by  assuming  that,  in  order  to  conform  to  the  tri- 
literalism  which  the  increasing  demand  for  adequate  expres- 
sion had  gradually  been  developing,  they  first  doubled  the 
second  letter  in  certain  biliteral  roots,  and  then  in  certain 
inflections  and  derivatives  from  the  same  roots  sounded  that 
letter  a  second  time.^ 

In  this  discussion  we  have  adopted  the  current  terminology 
of  these  roots,  as  though  the  second  radical  were  actually 
repeated  in  the  ultimate  basis  of  noun  and  verb  stems.  But 
it  is  really  doubtful  whether  in  Proto-Semitic  such  a  repeti- 

1  On  the  question  whether  the  doubled  or  the  repeated  forms  were  the  earlier, 
see  the  just  remarks  of  Stade,  Lehrbuch  d.  hebraischen  Grammatik  (Leipzig, 
1879),  ^  143  a. 


96  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

tion  occurred  at  all.  The  Assyrian,  otherwise  not  highly 
developed  among  the  Semitic  languages,  is  the  only  member 
of  the  family  that  makes  them  in  the  verb-stems  consistently 
triliteral,  while  in  none  of  the  dialects  are  shortened  forms 
given  up  in  the  noun-stems.  Moreover,  there  are  certain  of 
the  inflections  which  seem  to  show  that  a  third  radical  did 
not  primarily  exist.  Otherwise,  it  is  hard  to  explain  such  a 
form  as  the  imperfect  ^p"^,  in  Hebrew.  If  the  root  were  really 
*i^P,  the  third  radical,  not  being  weak,  would  have  to  be 
retained  or  represented.  We  must,  then,  regard  such  ^99 
roots  as  real  biliterals  in  Proto-Semitic.  Accordingly, 
whether  we  apply  to  the  subject  inductive  or  deductive  argu- 
ments, the  result  is  the  same.  Thus  a  large  class  of  current 
Semitic  roots  yields  to  analysis,  and  the  principle  of  triliter- 
alism  is  shown  not  to  be  inviolable. 

Still  further,  we  have  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  so-called 
^r  and  ^s  verbs.  The  close  relation  between  these  and  the 
class  just  discussed  has  always  been  observed,  and  the  con- 
viction is  now  pretty  well  fixed  among  Semitic  scholars  that 
they  have  a  common  origin,  however  remote  this  may  be. 
There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  these  roots  assumed  an 
independent  form  before  the  breaking  up  of  the  family,  as 
they  are  found  with  a  characteristic  system  of  inflection  and 
derivation  in  all  the  dialects.  Yet  here,  again,  the  proof  of 
triliteral  origin  is  wanting.  Of  course,  it  is  easy  to  say 
that  the  prevailing  type  of  stem-formation  in  the  Semitic 
generally  points  to  a  triliteral  beginning  here  as  elsewhere. 
It  is  just  here,  however,  that  the  very  premises  of  such  an 
argument  fail  us.  In  some  of  the  dialects  the  stems  are 
not  triliteral  at  all.  In  Assyrian  we  have  the  most  imper- 
fect development  of  these  forms.  The  verb  stems  coincide  in 
some  of  the  conjugations  with  those  of  'sy  verbs  (as  in 
Hebrew,  and  to  a  less  extent  in  Aramaic)  and  are  even  con- 
founded in  others  with  ^d  and  Vb  forms.  In  Hebrew  also 
there  is  no  characteristic  triliteral  stem-formation.  In  all 
the  stems  we  have  regularly  a  biliteral  base.  The  intensive 
stem  is  no  exception,  since  it  simply  repeats  the  last  radical, 


KELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGDAGES.  97 

forming  the  so-called  Polcl  (Proto-Semitic  Palel),  after  the 
analogy  of  the  'sr  roots.  The  existence  of  the  form  a*p  may 
be  pointed  to  as  rebutting  our  sweeping  assertion.  But  this 
only  confirms  our  general  position ;  for  it  is  only  in  later 
■writings  that  such  a  form  occurs,  which  would  of  itself  be 
conclusive  proof  that  the  tendency  was  to  develop  trilitcral 
forms  from  shorter  ones,  and  that  the  current  biliterals  are 
not  degenerations  of  longer  primary  forms.  The  designations 
usually  given  to  this  class  of  verbs  call  for  some  remark. 
The  name  ''5  is  misleading.  The  true  '*s  root  is  that  in 
which  the  n  is  a  primary  consonant,  as  in  Hebrew  n;s,  and 
many  other  cases  in  the  various  dialects.  The  native  Arabic 
grammarians  call  them  concave,  or  hollow,  roots,  a  term  which 
shows  how  slight  is  the  claim  these  forms  have  to  be  con- 
sidered tri-consonantal,  even  in  that  most  fully  developed  of 
Semitic  tongues.  The  appellation,  roots  with  a  medial 
vowel,  is  hardly  manageable  in  English.  The  formula  w, 
adopted  by  Stade  in  his  Lehrbuch,  is  not  correct,  inasmuch 
as  it  assumes  that  it  is  invariably  the  inherent  vowel.  The 
Arabic  designation  seems  to  characterize  the  typical  form 
pretty  fairly,  and  is,  perhaps,  on  the  whole,  the  one  to  be  pre- 
ferred. Our  view  of  the  origin  of  the  whole  class  will  be  given 
when  we  come  to  treat  particularly  of  its  formation. 

Evidence,  no  less  clear,  of  a  development  of  shorter 
primary  roots  is  afforded  by  the  so-called  'nb  stems.  These 
undoubtedly  point  to  a  primary  form  similar  to  those  which 
the  other  two  classes  imply  ;  and  with  them,  also,  it  is  clear 
that  the  final  element  cannot  originally  have  been  a  conso- 
nant. The  most  definite  thing  to  be  said  about  them  is  that 
the  old  root  appears  to  have  been  exj^anded  by  the  addition 
of  a  vowel,  i  or  w,at  the  end,  which,  under  certain  conditions, 
became  hardened  into  a  semi-vowel,  1/  or  v.  The  phenomena 
of  noun  and  verb  inflection  in  all  the  dialects  point  to  this 
conclusion.  The  assumption  that  the  original  form  in  each 
case  was  triconsonantal  is  met  by  a  multitude  of  facts  which 
it  cannot  be  reconciled  with.  Take,  for  example,  verli 
forms  in  Heln-ew,  Assyrian,  and  Aramaic,  which  stand  here 


98  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

upon  nearly  the  same  level  of  development.  It  is  not  easy 
to  account  for  the  3.  fem.  sing,  nnba  in  Hebrew,  or  the  o. 
pi.  !iba ,  and  analogous  forms,  on  the  theory  of  a  degeneration 
from  triliterals.  But  it  would  require  even  greater  ingenuity 
to  show  that  a  like  origin  is  to  be  assumed  for  the  suffix 
forms  of  this  class  of  verbs  in  Hebrew,  as  e.g.  "'a^a,  r\\^,  nba. 
The  suffix-formation  is  very  old  —  Proto-Semitic  in  fact — and 
even  in  other  dialects,  where  a  fuller  form  is  used  before 
suffixes,  the  same  reminiscence  of  a  shorter  stem  is  observ- 
able.^ Of  course  it  is  not  here  maintained  that  the  longer 
type  of  formation  with  the  added  vowel  or  semi-vowel  was 
not  developed  in  the  Semitic  family  before  its  breaking  up. 
On  the  contrary,  we  believe  that  these  quasi  triliterals  are 
really  Proto-Semitic.  It  is  only  claimed  that,  as  we  learn 
from  forms  exemplified  by  the  preceding  citations,  the  only 
satisfactory  theory  of  their  ultimate  origin  is  the  one  just 
given. 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  it  is  clear  how  little  evidence 
there  is  for  the  assumption  that  all  the  Semitic  roots  were 
originally  triconsonantal.  The  three  classes  known  as  'ss, '"s 
and  ^nb  roots  were  all  developed  from  shorter  forms,  according 
to  fixed  principles.  Having  thus  secured  a  sure  means  of 
ascertaining  the  primary  roots  of  the  system,  we  shall  now 
exhibit  in  detail,  as  was  done  with  the  Proto-Aryan,  the 
various  modes  by  which  the  secondary  roots  are  developed. 

First  as  to  the  development  of  secondary  roots  through 
predeterminatives,  or  the  prefixing  of  an  additional  sound. 
According  to  our  observation,  no  letter,  with  the  exception  of 
gutturals,  is  thus  employed  in  Proto-Semitic  which  is  not  also 

1  For  example,  the  Mandaite  and  Talmudic  dialects,  which  in  these  forms 
agree  more  nearly  than  do  the  Syriac  and  Hebrew  with  the  perfect  verb,  also 
show  occasional  instances  of  the  use  of  the  shorter  primary  stems.  Prof. 
Noldcke,  than  whom  there  is  no  higher  living  authority  on  such  matters,  says 
on  this  point :  "  Whatever  theory  may  in  general  be  held  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
weak  roots,  no  doubt  can  be  entertained  that  in  these  forms,  the  employment  of 
the  third  radical  as  a  consonant  is  secondary,  and  has  been  brought  about 
through  the  analogy  of  the  strong  verb."  —  Mandaiscbe  Grammatik  (Leipzig, 
1875),  p.  284. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.  99 

a  formative  or  inflective  element  of  the  language  —  a  fact  of 
the  very  highest  importance  in  its  bearings  both  upon  Semitic 
and  upon  general  linguistic  morphology. 

nMs  a  predeterminative  in  Proto-Semitic,  as  may  be  seen 
from   the   cases   now  to  be  cited  :     12,  to  cut  off,  separate 

(Heb.  na ;  Arab,  jj)  yields  'nax  to  be  separated,  to  be  lost, 
to  perish  (Heb.  ^28< ;  Aram,  "inx,  jTsf;  Eth.  A^J?).  ^=  to 
bend  (Heb.  and  Chald.  5]?,  Syr.  ^A£>,  to  bend;  Arab,  ^j^, 
to  turn  aside),  gives  us  ti^x,  to  bend  for  a  burden  (Heb.  v12N 
in  causative  sense,  cf .  ?|2X ,  burden ;  Syr.  ^.as]  to  oppress  ; 
Arab,  ^^'^j,  11.  iv.  to  saddle).     Other  examples  are  found  in 

ElDx ,  to  scrape  up,  add,  accumulate,  from  vp,  to  scrape  ;  ^Oi<,  to 
bind,  from  "id,  to  press  together,  bind.  These  also  may  be 
abundantly  attested  as  Proto-Semitic. 

n  is  a  rare  predeterminative  in  Proto-Semitic ;  nor  is  it  a 
very  common  one  in  any  of  the  dialects  in  their  separate  his- 
tory.    A  very  probable  instance  we  take  to  be  found  in  ^an,  to 

divide  up  (Heb.  "iSJ^,  air.  \ey. ;  Arab.'J^ )  from  the  familiar 

root  *ia  to  cut,  divide.     On  the  same  level  stands  Q-m,  to  be 

high  (Heb.  ti-n,  found   in  derivatives;  Arab.  j»^ ^whence 

^/j^,  pyramid),   from   the   widely- extended   root  Q^.     The 

rootl't^,  to  go  away  (Heb.  Tj^t^;  Aram,  "n^fi,  ^cij  Arab. 
viUjfi,  to  perish),  furnishes  another  example;  for  though";^ 
is  not  found  as  Proto-Semitic,  it  may  be  inferred  with  cer- 
tainty, through  a  comparison  of  the  related  forms,  'p'n,  -jb*', 
";bttj,  y<\  as  represented  in  various  dialects,  in  all  of  which 
the  notion  of  going  is  manifest. 

t  is  a  predeterminative  in  the  following  among  other  cases. 

'i"i%  to  go  down  (Arab.  3''?  to  go  down  to  the  water  ;  Heb. 

1  The  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  will  be  used  throughout  to  represent 
primary  Semitic  sounds  and  forms,  as  was  before  stated. 


100        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

"1^%  and  Assyr.  ^-ix^  to  descend,  for  the  earlier  i-ii),  proceeds 
from  I"!,  to  thrust,  push,  cause  to  go  (Heb.  "it!;  xVrab.  ^'j 

cf.  nnn  and  ^j).  ^=%  to  contam,  hold,  be  capable  (Heb. 
^i;" ,  to  be   able  ;    Arab.  "C^ ,  to   regard   as   able,  trust   in ; 

Assyr.  ^rx^  contain,  maintain),  is  developed  from  ^s,  to  sur- 
round, enclose,  contain,  one  of  the  most  common  and  wide- 
spread of  Semitic  roots. 

•^  is  a  predeterminative  in  yp'',  to  awake  (Heb.  ypy,  Arab. 

ia-ftj  and  (jdXs),  as  compared  with  yp,  which,  though  only 

found  in  Hebrew,  is  almost  certainly  Proto-Semitic.  We 
may  also  compare  "i^"^,  the  root  of  the  Semitic  word  for  the 
right  hand,  witli  "^st,  to  be  firm,  found  in  all  the  divisions  of 
the  family  ;  and  ^^■',  to  be  right,  prosperous,  with  the  kindred 
•i;ax,  both  Proto-Semitic,  as  being  found  in  all  the  dialects. 
•'  was  not  employed  in  this  way  by  the  early  Semites  nearly 
so  often  as  i. 

n  is  probably  a  determinative  in  the  Proto-Semitic  p2n,  to 
press,  choke,  make  narrow,  found  in  all  the  dialects,  either  in 
noun  or  verb  stems.  This  may  be  connected  with  the  equally 
ancient  F^s,  to  put  round  the  neck,  if  the  primary  notion  of 

the  latter  is  of  close  binding  ;  while  the  Syr.  .  rTi  a..  Chald. 

pm? ,  Arab.    ~£^,  to  strangle,  is  clearly  a  kindred  causative. 

Another  case  is  perhaps  the  n  in  Proto-Semitic  Vmn.  to  let  go, 
cease,  etc.,  as  connected  with  ^*i,  to  be  loose,  which  is  devel- 
oped in  various  forms  throughout  the  family.  Dnn,  to  close, 
seal,  may  possibly  furnish  another  example,  but  the  proof 
would  be  precarious.  We  must  acknowledge  that  the  evi- 
dence is  not  conclusive  for  any  other  instance  of  the  use  of 
n  as  a  predeterminative.     The  persistence  and  independent 

1  According  to  the  law  discovered  and  established  by  Oppert  (sec  his  Gram- 
maire  Assyrienne,  2d  ed.,  1868,  p.  9  f.),  the  Hebrew  ''B  forms  usually  become 
'j<jj  in  Assyrian,  if  they  correspond  to  *ib  in  Arabic ;  but  when  the  Arabic 
preserves  the  Hebrew  •»  the  Assyrian  does  so  also.  The  Hebrew  forms  require 
no  explanation. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        101 

force  of  this  sound  from  the  earliest  Semitic  times,  is  one  of 
the  most  important  facts  in  the  phonology  of  the  system. 

B  is  a  predeterminative  in  one  or  two  roots  with  a  causa- 
tive force.  Thus  bn'o,  to  extend,  lengthen  (Heb.,  Arab.,  and 
Targ.,  either  in  noun  or  verb  stems),  may  be  compared  with 
^ia ,  to  be  long  (as  in  Arabic  ;  the  Heb.  ^""wrj  means  to 
throw  =  send  along).  Such  developments  were  common 
enough  in  the  several  dialects  in  their  separate  history.  In 
p]thiopic  they  became  quite  fashionable.  In  the  primitive 
speech  they  were  very  rare  —  a  fact  which  may  perhaps  go  to 
show  that  73  as  a  servile  letter  was  of  later  origin  than  some 
of  the  others,  being  a  nominal,  not  a  verbal  formative. 

3  was  a  very  common  Proto  -  Semitic  predeterminative. 
Thus,  "(HD,  to  give  (Heb.,  Cliald.,  Samar.  ;  the  Assyr.  'pi  shows 
a  customary  softening  of  t  to  d^,  is  plainly  developed  from 
the  familiar  root  in,  to  stretch,  in  the  sense  of  reaching 
forth.  "JD3 ,  to  weave  together,  cover  over  (Heb.  I^w  ;  Assyr. 
Ipi;  cf.  Arab.  ^  y.'i).  is  formed  from  ip  (Heb.  and  Assyr.  ?jO, 

to  weave,  to  cover  ;  Arab.  ,ij[^,  to  cover  with  armor).     ia:, 

to  move  along  (Chald.  ^?5 ,  to  draw,  to  flow ;  Heb.  "155 ,  to 
flow,  to  rush  ;  Assyrian  nagaru  to  overwhelm ;  and  perhaps 
Eth.  ^1.*/,  to  speak  =  make  words  flow  forth,  express).  Is 
developed  from  ^5,  a  common  Semitic  root,  meaning  to  drag, 
draw  along.     The  Arab.     ^1^ ,  to  flow,  is  an  instructive  con- 

necting  link.     Many  other  examples  might  be  adduced. 

5  seems  to  be,  in  a  few  cases,  a  Proto-Semitic  predetermin- 
ative.    ^P'S,  to  cut,  dig  out  (Heb.  "^i^s ,  with  kindred  meanings 

in   Chald.   and    Syr.;  Arab.  ^_£^,  wound,  etc.),  is  probably 

formed  from  the  wide-spread  primitive  root  "^P ,  to  cut,  dig. 
n^'S ,  to  dispose  in  order,  arrange  together  (Heb.  T^y ;  cf .  Eth. 
\Jj^y\,  HI.  3,  to  make  an  alliance  or  friendship),  cannot  be 
separated  from  "i"ix,  to  stretch  out  (Heb.,  Arab.,  Syr.,  and 
Samar. ;  Talm.  to  arrange,  prepare  ;  for  the  connection  of 
meanings,  cf.  the  Latin  rego  with  rectus^. 


102         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

tt>  is  an  occasional  predeterminative  in  primitive  Semitism. 
We  may  compare  here  the  two  roots  Visi  and  ^^^ ,  to  flow, 
go,  which  agree  remarkably  in  Heb.,  Arab.,  Aram.,  and  Assyr., 
either  in  the  primary  or  secondary  senses,  or  in  both  ;  and 
that  with  respect  both  to  the  verb  and  the  noun  stems.  The 
root  •)=  (113),  tu  be  fixed,  gives  rise  to  "fi^,  which  in  Assyr. 
has  the  proper  causative  sense,  to  establish,  and  in  the  other 
dialects  becomes  reflexive  or  intransitive  :  to  establish  one's 
self,  to  dwell,  ssia,  to  lie  (Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Ethiopic),  is 
probably  developed  from  the  old  root  -a,  to  bend,  curve  (cf. 
recline^,  v  was  much  more  frequently  used  in  this  way  in 
the  various  dialects  in  their  separate  history,  such  an  employ- 
ment of  it  being  specially  noticeable  in  Assyrian. 

Of  the  use  of  n  as  a  predeterminative,  of  which  we  find 
frequent  examples  in  the  later  history  of  the  dialects,  we 
find  at  least  one  sure  example  in  Proto-Semitism  :  pn  (Heb. 
Aram,  and  Arabic,  to  be  straight,  solid  ;  cf.  pn)  from  the 
ancient  root  IP  (cf.  ")=);  while  others  are  probable. 

Next,  we  have  to  consider  the  various  modes  of  expanding 
a  primary  root  l)y  means  of  internal  modifications,  or  the  use 
of  indeterminatives. 

K  is  an  indeterminative  in  *i»2,  to  dig  (Heb.,  Arab., 
Aram.,  and  Assyr.,  in  noun  or  verb  stems),  springing 
from  the  wide-spread  ancient  root  1:1 .  to  cut,  to  bore.  The 
same  use  is  exemplified  in  ^no,  to  be  large,  great  (in  Assyr. 
noun  and  verb  stem  in  the  general  sense,  as  also  in  noun- 
stem  in  Heb.  ;  in  Arab,  specially  of  the  growth  of  plants  :  cf . 

j(V^  ,  to  spread)  from  the  root  ^"a ,  to  extend,  found  through- 
out the  Semitic  system.  We  may  also  compare  dxa ,  to  flow, 
as  blood  from  a  wound  (Heb.,  Chald.,  with  an  allied  sense  in 
Arabic),  and  cts,  to  be  liquid,  also  unquestionably  primitive. 
Many  other  examples  might  be  adduced  ;  and  it  is  safe  to 
say  that  in  every  case  in  which  the  last  letter  of  a  tricon- 
sonantal  root  is  "  strong,''  and  the  first  letter  primary,  a 
medial  N  is  determinative.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  N  is  used  in 
the  interest  of  a  vowel,  which  is  the  real  modifying  element 
in  this  variety  of  rootrformation. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        103 

M  is  an  indeterminative  in  "ins,  to  shine  forth  (Assyr., 
Aram.,  Heb.,  and  Arabic,  in  noun  or  verb-stems,  or  in  both)  : 
cf.  113,  to  shine,  which  appears  likewise  in  all  the  divisions  of 
the  family.  So  also  -n^i,  to  revolve,  keep  going  (in  Assyr., 
Aram.,  Heb.,  and  Arabic,  either  in  noun  or  verb  stems), 
developed  from  the  ancient  common  root  Ti  (cf.  -n^).  In 
this  use  n  is  nearly  as  common  as  k. 

1,  more  frequently  than  any  other  letter,  represents  an  in- 
ternal development  of  the  root.  It  is,  of  course,  demonstrable 
that  this  shows  a  secondary  form  only  when  we  can  compare 
with  the  simpler  so-called  "ss  roots.  Such  cases,  however,  are 
quite  numerous.  Thus  we  have  "ii5,  to  turn  aside,  sojourn, 
found  in  all  the  dialects,  as  compared  with  ^a,  to  turn,  to 
twist,  to  roll,  equally  Proto-Semitic ;  *ii^,  to  revolve,  as 
related  with  i^,  which  expresses  various  kinds  of  irregular 
motion  in  the  different  dialects.  We  may  compare  also 
ni5  and  *i5,  both  primitive  roots  expressing  rapid  motion  and 
flight ;  ^s  and  "tisj,  both  Proto-Semitic,  of  which  the  former 
means,  to  arrange  in  a  series,  to  number,  and  the  latter,  to  re- 
peat. j\Iany  other  cases  might  be  cited ;  and  it  may  be  stated 
as  a  general  fact,  that  when  we  have  an  ^^s  and  an  'ss  root,  side 
by  side,  with  the  first  and  last  letters  the  same  in  both,  the 
radical  notions  in  both  may  be  easily  connected.  Objection 
might  be  brought  on  the  score  of  the  Avant  of  association 
between  a  few  of  such  cases.  The  only  exceptions  we  know 
of  in  Proto-Semitic  are  the  roots  from  which  spring  nni,  day, 
and  D'',  sea  (but  we  have  not  any  verb-stems  from  these 
roots,  and  therefore  can  say  nothing  as  to  the  primary 
meanings),  and  b'ln,  to  whirl,  twist,  which  does  not  seem 
connected  with  ^n,  to  pierce,  to  open,  siuj,  to  return,  may 
be  explained  as  connected  with  no,  to  turn  around  ;  at 
least,  that  is  the  only  primitive  root  with  which  it  can  be 
compared. 

It  is  now  proper  to  give  what  seems  to  us  to  be  the  true 
view  of  the  origin  of  these  forms.  It  being  quite  certain 
that  inflection  had  begun  long  before  the  roots  had  been 
universally  raised  to  the  tri-consonantal  type,  the  matter  of 


104        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

assimilating  the  shorter  forms  to  that  standard  was  accom- 
plished apparently  in  this  way.  While  the  'ss"  roots  reached 
this  level  by  having  the  second  radical  emphasized  or  doubled 
(and  afterwards,  in  certain  inflections,  repeated),  the  'is  roots 
entered  upon  the  same  stage  by  having  the  characteristic 
vowel  of  each  stem  lengthened.  Thus  ham  in  inflection 
would  become  kdm  :  and  kuni^  kdrn}  Not  till  a  much  later 
period  did  the  more  highly  developed  of  the  Semitic  dialects, 
Arabic  and  Ethiopic,  make  of  these  stems  distinct  roots. 
From  this  it  follows  that  a  medial  i  represents  merely  a 
lengthened  inflective  vowel  in  Proto-Semitic,  and  not  a 
radical  sound. 

n  as  an  ancient  indeterminative  can  be  held  to  be  probable 
in  only  one  instance  that  we  can  adduce.  A  plausible  case  is 
rnn,  the  root  of  ^"^nTa,  price,  which  it  would  seem  proper  to 
connect  with  "nna,  to  sell,  and  ^"n,  to  exchange.''^  But  it  is 
not  Proto-Semitic  in  that  sense,  only  Hebrew ;  the  Assyr. 
mahun,  offering,  tribute,  which  Lenormant^  connects  with 
•n^nri,  being  derived  from  the  native  root  nnn,  to  be  in  front, 
and  in  causative  forms  to  bring  before,  or  present.^  A  surer 
instance  is  found  in  •'no,  to  go  round,  traverse  (Heb.,  Aram., 
and  Assyr.),  as  compared  with  -,nD,  to  be  round  (Heb.  and 

5  0^ 

Aram. ;  cf.  Arab.       g  a  ,  moon,  with   Heb.  "ji^iinb,  and  Syr. 

1^(31^),  both  of  which  may  be  connected  with  Heb.  "nsio,  to 

turn  aside,  from  the  primary  notion  of  bending.  Of  course, 
it  may  be  suspected  that  -incs  may  be  merely  a  strengthened 
form  of  •nno,  especially  as  in  Assyrian  the  former  root  has 
the  intransitive  meaning  attaching  in  the  other  dialects  to 
the  latter.     In  general,  we  may  say  of  medial  n  what  has 

1  See  a  brief  but  instructive  discussion  of  this  question  by  Prof.  A.  Miiller  in 
Zeitschrift  d.  d.  morj:;.  Gesellschaft  for  1879,  p.  698  ff. 

'■^  Not  with  "i^'J  to  sell,  which  is  probably  a  secondary,  derived  from  H"l3 
to  buy  (cf.  the  use  of  a  as  a  predetcrminative  discussed  above). 

"  Etude  sur  quelques  parties  des  syllabaires  cuneiformes  (Paris,  1876),  p.  247. 

*  The  conjecture  of  Fricdr.  Dclitzsch  (Assyr.  Studien,  Part  i.  p.  125),  that 
the  Hebrew  and  Assyrian  roots  are  connected,  is  probably  wrong. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        1 05 

been  said  already  of  initial  n ,  that  it  is  normally  an  indepen- 
dent stable  sound. 

Medial  "^  appears  to  represent  an  expansion  of  the  root  in 
several  cases,  rev,  to  place,  lay  down  (in  noun  or  verb 
stems  in  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Assyr.),  must  be  compared  with 
rm,  which  is  also  possibly  primitive,  being  found  in  both 
Heb.  and  Aram,  in  the  same  sense.  So  also  apparently 
with  -jip,  to  fashion,  forge,  as  compared  with  p,  to  set  right, 
prepare. 

In  these  •>  appears  to  be  Proto-Semitic ;  and  yet  here,  as 
well  as  in  the  many  cases  where  '"y  and  'iy  forms  exist  side  by 
side  in  the  same  sense,  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  "^  is  pri- 
mary. It  seems  more  probable  that  it  took  the  place  of  l  in 
these  instances ;  it  having  perhaps  been  shortened  from  the 
causative  form  of  the  verb-stem  in  each  case,  since  such  'is 
stems  are  mostly  transitive.  If  this  view  is  correct,  we 
cannot  maintain  that  "^  represents  a  Proto-Semitic  indeter- 
minative,  but  are  obliged  to  hold  that  medial  "^  stands  with 
medial  i  for  that  very  early  lengthening  of  the  inflective 
vowel  by  which  the  primary  roots  were  made  to  assume  a 
triliteral  guise. 

5  is  an  indeterminative  in  ^sa,  to  be  separated  from  (repre- 
sented in  Heb.,  Arab.,  and  Ethiopic)  as  compared  with  the 
universal  root  ^2,  to  divide  ;  also  in  "".sd,  to  cut  off,  consume 
(appearing  in  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic)  as  related  vnth  the 
primitive  root  ia,  to  divide ;  so  too  evidently  in  ^ss,  to  be 
small  (in  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic)  as  developed  from  ns, 
to  press  together,  contract,  also  Proto-Semitic ;  and  in 
several  other  cases,  amounting  to  about  one  half  of  the  whole 
number  of  roots  in  which  s>  appears  as  the  middle  radical. 
In  nearly  all  the  remainder  with  medial  ^  the  first  letter  is 
a  determinative :  thus,  it  would  seem,  5  was  not  liked  as 
the  second  letter  of  primitive  biliterals,  while,  as  we  have 
seen,  it  was  frequently  employed  as  the  first  —  an  instructive 
fact  in  Semitic  phonology  and  morphology. 

These  are  the  only  letters  we  can  regard  as  undoubted 
Proto-Semitic  indeterminatives.     Others  (as  2,-i,i),n)  were 


106         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

used  more  or  less  freely  in  the  different  dialects  during  their 
separate  history,  especially  in  the  formation  of  quadriliterals, 
which  are  all  secondary  roots.^ 

Lastly,  we  have  to  take  the  final  determinative  letters  in 
Proto-Semitic.  These  are  much  more  numerous  than  either 
of  the  other  two  classes ;  the  true  place  of  the  additional 
sounds  in  secondary  roots  being  at  the  end,  as  in  the  Aryan 
family. 

N  represents  a  post-determinative  very  frequently.  So  in 
x^n,  to  hew  out,  fashion,  create  (in  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic), 
from  "13,  to  cut,  which  is  variously  represented  in  all  the 
dialects.  So  also  in  xba,  to  shut  out,  to  obstruct  (Heb., 
Aram.,  and  Arabic),  as  compared  with  Vid,  to  shut,  close, 
finish  (found  in  noun  or  verb  stems  in  all  the  dialects).  It 
appears  in  many  other  examples  that  might  be  cited ;  and 
we  are  inclined  to  set  it  down  as  a  principle  that  wherever 
j<  appears  as  the  last  letter  of  a  root,  it  is  of  secondary 
origin,  unless  the  first  letter  is  a  determinative.  This  might 
be  inferred  from  the  character  of  the  sound  itself,  which 
only  exists  for  the  sake  of  its  vowel ;  but  it  may  be  proved  in 
nearly  every  case  by  actual  comparison  with  kindred  forms. 
The  only  instances  in  which  this  is  not  practicable  are  prob- 
ably N^o,  to  fill ;  Nip,  to  be  moved  with  passion ;  and  n:os, 
to  thirst ;  and  here  it  is  better  to  assume  that  the  kindred 
roots  are  lost  or  their  connection  obscure,  than  to  maintain 
that  the  fc^  stands  so  exceptionally  for  an  independent 
consonant. 

a  is  apparently  a  post-determinative  in  a-ia,  to  be  scabby, 
leprous  (Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic  in  noun  or  verb  stems), 
from  the  widespread  root  "la,  to  scrape  ;  in  aan,  to  hew  wood 
(Heb.,  Arab.,  and  Ethiopic)  from  the  common  root  an  to 
cut;  in  aba,  to  hang  up  =  make  incline  (Aram.,  Arab.,  and 

1  If  the  Proto-Semitic  root  IPS'  to  prepare,  could  be  regarded  as  having  a 
similar  origin  to  that  of  a^  conj.  VIII.  in  Arabic,  an  instance  would  be  at 

hand  of  the  use  of  n  servile  as  an  indeterminative ;  but  this  we  cannot  regard 
aa  probable. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        lOV 

Ethiopic),   as  compared   with   i<^s,  to   incline,  also  Proto- 
Semitic ;  and  perhaps  in  a  few  other  cases. 

a  is  a  post-determinative  in  jbe,  ta  divide  (in  various  noun 
or  verb  stems  in  Aram.,  Heb.,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic),  from 
the  root  ^b,  to  cleave,  burst  asunder,  variously  represented 
in  all  the  dialects ;  and  perhaps  in  a^-i,  to  go,  proceed  by 
steps  (Aram.,  Arabic,  with  a  Heb.  noun-stem),  as  compared 
with  -^-in,  and  the  primary  root  ^-\,  which  seems  to  express 
lively  motion  in  general.  We  cannot  adduce  any  other 
probable  instances  from  Proto-Semitic. 

1  is  a  post-determinative  in  ^»n,  to  be  ardent  (with  related 
meaning  in  all  the  dialects  i),  as  compared  with  en,  to  be 
warm  ;  also  in  tib,  to  separate  (in  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic), 
from  -iB,  to  rend  asunder ;  and  in  several  other  cases. 

!n  is  an  post-determinative  apparently  in  pba,  to  be  stupid, 
embarrassed,  timid  (cf.  the  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic  mean- 
ings), from  ^a,  to  be  confounded,  confused  ;  probably  in 
snbx,  the  root  2  of  a  Proto-Semitic  name  for  God  (Heb.,  Aram., 
and  Arabic,  which),  as  we  prefer  to  think,  is  a  denominative 
from  the  shorter  ix,  also  proved  to  be  Proto-Semitic  by  the 
Assyr.  il-u  ;  and,  in  general,  wherever  it  occurs  as  the  third 
radical,  as  it  does  but  rarely  in  the  primitive  speech. 

1 ,  or  rather  the  vowel  u,  was  used  as  a  post-determinative 
in  the  primitive  speech.^  So  apparently  in  '^a ,  to  draw  off, 
lay  bare,  reveal  (in  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic  ;  in  Ethiopic, 
to  draw  on,  cover),  as  compared  with  a  root  ia,  evident  in 
sba,  iba,  nba,  of  kindred  meanings,  all  Proto-Semitic.     So  too 

1  The  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  forms  mean  to  desire  ardently  ;  the  Arabic  has 
one  meaning,  to  be  angry  (or  "  warm  ") ;  another  to  deem  worthy  of  praise,  i.e. 
desirable  ;  the  Assyrian  means  to  hasten,  or  pursue  ardently. 

^  What  the  specific  meaning  of  this  root  was,  or  whether  it  ever  had  more 
than  a  theoretical  potential  significance,  is  doubtful.  The  Arabic  meaning,  to 
adore,  is  probably  secondary,  =  regard  as  God. 

"  It  is  not  easy  to  say  in  all  cases  whether  u  or  t  was  the  original  determina- 
tive vowel.  It  is  only  in  Arabic  and  Ethiopic  that  the  distinction  between  the 
two  has  been  regularly  preserved.  Moreover,  in  these  languages  so  many  new 
roots  were  developed  in  later  times  with  these  as  f.nal  sounds,  that  the  question 
of  priority  is  still  further  obscured.  It  is  only  where  the  two  idioms  agree  in 
important  roots,  that  we  can  infer  surely  as  to  the  real  state  of  the  case. 


108         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

ill  ib^,  to  let  down,  suspend,  weigh  (cf.  the  various  related 
meanings  in  Assyr.,  Ethiop.,  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic,  which 
has  also  ^iii),  from  the  root  bn,  to  hang  loose,  no  less  widely 
represented  through  the  system ;  and  in  other  cases  that 
might  be  adduced. 

t  is  a  post-determinative  in  na,  to  pierce.  This  root  is 
found  only  in  Heb.  and  Aram. ;  but  it  is  proved  to  be  Proto- 
Semitic  by  the  word  for  iron,  1=112  (^t^B),  which  is  found  in 
all  the  dialects,  and  is  evidently  developed  from  it,  as  we 
shall  see  later.  The  ultimate  root  is  13,  to  divide  open, 
already  frequently  cited,  ns,  to  separate,  branch  out,  is 
also  Proto-Semitic,  from  the  common  root  is,  related  to  in. 
t,  however,  is  rarely  used  for  this  purpose,  as  we  would  natu- 
rally expect  from  the  fact  that  it  is  a  secondary  sound  arising 
froms:    cf.  in  Hebrew  ns,  D12,  ps ;   tbr,  d1=s,  •jrbr. 

n  is  a  frequent  post-determinative.  So  in  nm,  to  pass 
through,  to  pass  out,  escape  (cf.  the  Heb.,  Arabic,  and 
Ethiopic  stems),  as  related  with  -a.  So  also  in  nba,  to  make 
bare,  smooth,  bald  (Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic),  as  compared 
with  nbj,  etc.,  cited  above.  It  is  found,  besides,  in  a  few 
other  cases ;  but  was  employed  far  more  frequently  in  each, 
dialect  after  the  dispersion  of  the  family. 

13  is  perhaps  a  post-determinative  in  abe,  to  break  away, 
escape  (cf.  the  related  senses  in  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic; 
the  Assyr.  1:^3,  to  live  =  to  be  preserved,  is  the  same  root), 
from  ^3,  to  cleave  or  break  open.  Possibly,  also,  in  urn 
(Aram.,  Arabic,  and  Hebrew  in  noun  or  verb  stems,  and 
perhaps  Assyrian)  to  cut  into,  grave,  engrave,  as  compared 

with  a  root  in,  represented  in  Arab.    ^  ,  to  cut  open,  pierce, 

divide ;  in  tjin,  etc.  The  Heb.  and  Arab,  ana  of  like  meaning, 
we  may  compare  with  a  root  lo,  represented  in  the  Heb.  i-'io 
and  lib,  to  saw,  and  elsewhere.  »,  however,  was  not  a  very 
common  determinative. 

1,1  or  rather  the  vowel  i,  was  apparently  the  most  common 
of  all  the  post>determinatives.  The  following  are  a  few  of 
its  examples :  "^ss,  to  smite,  injure  (Arab.,  Ethiop.,  Heb.,  and 

1  See  the  remarks  just  made  on  1  as  a  post-detenninative. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        109 

Aram.),  from  a  common  root^s,  cognate  with  53;  -ips,  to  be 
separate,  pure  (with  interesting  derived  meanings  in  Arab., 
Aram.,  Heb.,  and  Assyrian),  as  compared  with  pj,  a  widely 
represented  primitive  root,  meaning  to  strike  asunder ;  i:p, 
to  erect,  to  estabhsh,  acquire,  possess  (in  noun  or  verb  stems 
in  all  the  dialects),  from  )p,  to  be  erect. 

3  is  a  probable  post-determinative  in  "yn,  to  tread  (with 
various  associated  meanings  in  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabo- 
Ethiopic),  as  compared  with  an*i  and  the  primary  n-i  cited 
above.  Also  in  "^is,  to  break  in  pieces,  crush,  oppress  (cf. 
the  noun  and  verb  stems  with  related  meanings  in  Syr., 
Arab,,  Heb.,  and  Assyrian),  from  the  familiar  root  "is,  to 
rend  asunder ;  and  in  a  few  other  instances. 

i»  is  a  post-determinative  in  bna,  to  twist  together,  make 
strong  or  great  (cf.  the  various  meanings  in  Aram.,  Heb., 
Arab.,  and  Ethiopic),  as  related  with  the  root  na,  to  bind, 
which  appears  in  lax  and  i^i,,  both  Proto-Semitic.  It  is  also 
found  in  bna,  to  tear  off,  drag  off,  as  related  with  ^5,  already 
cited  (both  of  which  are  found  in  Heb.,  Aram.,  Arabic)  ;  and 
in  a  few  other  cases. 

a  is  a  post-determinative  in  os5,  to  be  firm,  strong,  great 
(cf.  the  noun  and  verb  stems  in  Arab.,  Heb.,  and  Assyrian  ^), 
as  related  with  ys,  to  be  strong,  as  found  in  nsr,  y.y,  etc. 
Also  in  D^r,  to  be  naked,  bare,  as  compared  with  115  and  n-is, 
of  a  similar  meaning,  all  of  them  being  Proto-Semitic.  A 
few  other  cases  might  be  adduced. 

3  as  a  Proto-Semitic  post-determinative  can  hardly  be 
proved.  The  only  plausible  instance  we  can  adduce  is  pa, 
the  root  of  the  Proto-Semitic  word  for  threshing-floor  (Heb., 
Arabic,  and  Ethiopic),  which  seems  to  be  developed  from  a 
root  *ia,  of  manifold  expressiveness,  but  having  clearly  the 
general  sense  of  dragging  along,  rubbing,  crushing,  so  that 
pa  may  perhaps  be  =  the  place  of  threshing  grain.^    pa,  to 

1  The  Assyr.  asmu  means  material,  analogous  with  Heb.  q^jj  bone,  in  the 
Inscription  of  Khorsabad,  line  164  (see  Oppert's  Commentaire  philologique). 

2  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  verb-stem  pa  clearly  Proto-iTemitic,  which 

would  give  a  suitable  intermediary  sense.     The  Arabic      _  ,.^    however,  means 


no         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

be  curved  or  arched,  if  it  is  Proto-Semitic  in  that  sense, 
might  be  connected  with  aa  of  kindred  meaning ;  but  it  is 
difficult  to  comprehend  all  the  divergent  meanings  of  the 
former  root  under  one  general  satisfactory  notion,  a  was 
used  more  freely  for  this  purpose  in  each  dialect  after  the 
family  separation. 

G^  is  a  post-determinative  in  ens,  to  cleave  asunder,  break 
up  (cf.  the  noun  and  verb  stems  in  Heb.,  Aram.,  Arab.,  and 
Ethiopic)  as  related  with  the  familiar  root  ^s  ;  and  in  a  few 
other  cases. 

y  is  a  post-determinative  in  3>ns,  to  hew  off  (Heb.  and 
Arabic)  from  the  root  "la,  variously  represented  in  the  sense 
of  cutting;  in  s-it,  to  scatter,  to  sow  (represented  in  Heb., 
Aram.,  Arab.,  Eth.,  and  Assyrian),  from  the  root  1.1,  to 
spread,  scatter,  shown  in  ".it  and  several  other  kindred 
forms ;  and  in  many  other  cases.  It  is  clearly  a  determina- 
tive in  nearly  every  instance  of  its  use  as  the  last  radical. 
Those  few  cases  are  of  course  excepted  when  the  first  letter 
is  a  determinative,  as  in  ssi,  to  place ;  so5,  to  set  in  or  set 
out.  It  is  probable  that  no  ultimate  triliteral  ended  in  y. 
sa«j,  to  be  full,  satisfied,  is  probably  no  exception.^  Those 
who  hold  to  a  common  origin  of  mo  ^  and  the  Indo-European 
word  for  seven  will  have  no  hesitation  in  considering  the  » 
as  secondary  in  the  former  word. 

B  is  a  post-d|terminative  in  C]-\5,  to  carry  away,  sweep 
away  (in  noun  or  verb-stems  in  Heb.,  Aram.,  Arab.,  Ethiop., 
and   Assyrian),   from  the   root  ^5,  to  drag  along,  already 

to  grind  corn,  thus  furnishing  a  notion  kindred  to  the  one  required.  Its  other 
meaning  of  smoothing,  wiping  clean,  does  not  throw  satisfactory  light  on  the 
word  for  threshing-floor,  though  it  is  usually  assumed  as  explaining  it. 

1  The  distinction  between  this  and  123  was,  as  we  have  seen,  obscured  in  some 
of  the  dialects.  The  Hebrew  b  appears  to  have  preserved  the  sound  best,  though 
not  in  all  cases.     With  it  agrees  in  general,  the  Arabic  (ww  ,  the  Ethiopic  \] 

the  Aramaic  <mSO  and  o,  and  the  Assyrian  s,  as  it  is  conventionally  represented; 
though  the  disagreements  are  frequent,  except  in  Assyrian. 

*  See  Gesenius'  Thesaurus,  p.  1319,  for  kindred  forms. 

'  Not  SDiy.  That  the  other  is  the  Proto-Semitic  form,  a  comparisofl  of 
Assyrian  eibu  with  the  Arabic  and  Ethiopic  shows  plainly. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.       Ill 

alluded  to;  in  cjM  (Heb..  Aram.,  and  Ethiopic),  to  smite, 
from  the  widespread  root  a,  to  strike ;  and  in  several  other 
plain  cases. 

s  is  a  post-determinative  in  y^t,  to  cleave  or  break  open 
(Heb.,  Ass  jr.,  Arab.,  and  Aramaic),  from  the  common  root 
"IB,  to  divide  ;  and  in  a  few  other  instances  equally  clear. 

p  is  a  post-determinative  in  pnt,  to  scatter,  sprinkle  (in 
noun  or  verb  stems  in  Heb.,  Assyr.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic), 
from  the  root  ^t  already  referred  to ;  and  in  several  other 
forms.  < 

1  is  a  post-determinative  in  "nrsB,  to  open  (with  various 
associated  meanings  in  Assyr.,  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Arabic), 
from  the  common  root  liB  (pb)  of  kindred  meaning ;  and  in 
many  other  forms  that  might  be  cited. 

tt)  is   a   post-determinative   in   U5-ib,   to  separate,   scatter, 

disperse  (Heb.,  tna  ;  Aram.,    yja^^i  and  ttJ"^B  ;   Arab.,  ^^jij 

Assyr.,  c'nB  in  Niphal,  to  flee  away),  from  the  familiar  root 
*iB.  It  appears  besides  in  only  a  few  other  cases  ;  but,  like 
G,  was  more  commonly  employed  as  a  secondary  formative 
in  each  dialect  after  the  Semitic  dispersion. 

n  also  is  an  infrequent  post-determinative.  It  appears  in 
PCS,  to  be  silent  and  bring  to  silence  (cf.  the  associated  mean- 
ings in  Heb.,  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic),  as  related  with 
the  root  os,  with  the  primary  notion  of  binding,  shutting  up, 
which  is  extended  in  the  different  roots  so  as  to  express  the 
divergent  ideas  of  fasting,  deafness,  dumbness.  It  is  found 
also  in  a  few  other  cases,  and  in  some  instances  of  its  occur- 
rence the  root  is  perhaps  a  denominative,  formed  from  a 
feminine  abstract. 

We  must  now  put  together  the  results  of  this  investigation 
into  the  structure  of  Semitic  secondary  roots,  and  try  to 
classify  those  sounds  used  in  forming  them.  First,  as  to 
predeterminatives,  we  found  that  n,  n,  i,  n  (probably),  ■<, », 
3,  5,  w,  and  P.  were  thus  used.  Of  these  x  represents  only  a 
prefixed  vowel ;  for  though  it  is  a  true  consonant  it  is  only 
used  in  the  interest  of  the  vowel  sound  that  conditions  it. 


112         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

With  regard  to  i  and  '^,  it  might  seem  doubtful  whether  they 
were  originally  prefixed  as  consonants,  or  as  the  corre- 
sponding vowels  u  and  i.  On  the  whole,  we  incline  to  the 
belief  that  they  were  at  first  vowels,  and  then  in  course  of 
inflection  hardened  into  serai-vowels.  For  this  the  following 
arguments  may  be  offered :  (1)  the  analogy  of  the  post- 
determinatives  1  and  *'  ;  (2)  the  frequent  interchange  ob- 
served in  every  Semitic  period  of  'iS3  or  '•'s  with  '■s'  forms 
developed  from  the  same  primary  root,  —  a  phenomenon  easy 
of  explanation  upon  this  theory,  but  more  difficult  upon  the 
other  ;  the  'is  stems  being,  as  we  have  seen,  merely  vowel 
expansions  of  "ss  forms  ;  (3)  the  fact  that  consonants  are 
not  normally  liked  as  predetermi natives  :  r,  5,  t\  and  n  are 
used  because  they  are  inflective  formatives ;  the  other  con- 
sonants are  breathings,  and  of  them  H  and  s  are  rare,  and  n 
doubtful.  In  all  probability  we  may  set  down  s<  as  repre- 
senting a,  1  and  "^  as  representing  u  and  i  respectively,  when 
used  as  predeterminatives. 

n,  n,  and  s,  used  as  predeterminatives,  probably  arose  in 
this  way.  n  is  the  surd  breathing  corresponding  to  the 
sonant  n,  and  arose  from  it  through  the  process  of  dialectic 
variation  familiar  in  all  languages.  Its  rarity  as  a  radical 
prefix  is  a  proof  of  its  late  employment  for  this  purpose. 
"Prom  it  n  arose  by  strengthening,  and  was  employed  still 
more  rarely,  r  is  the  deep  guttural  development  of  x  ;  and 
as  n  is  rarer  than  n,  so  y  is  rarer  than  k  as  a  predeterminative. 

The  true  consonants  used  as  radical  prefixes,  n,  ;,  ir,  n,  are 
among  the  rarest  used  as  post-determinatives ;  while  other  con- 
sonants, some  of  which  are  very  common  at  the  end  of  roots, 
are  not  used  at  all  as  predeterminatives.  The  solution  of 
this  enigma  can  only  be  gained  from  the  consideration  that 
these  are  letters  used  frequently  as  prefixes  in  the  formation 
of  verb  or  noun  stems.  And  it  is  remarkable  that  the  fre- 
quency of  their  occurrence,  respectively,  varies  according  to 
the  priority  of  their  introduction  as  stem-formatives,  as  the 
phenomena  of  the  Semitic  idiom  seem  to  indicate  :  3  is  most 
commonly  employed,  then  a,  n  coming  next,  and  finally  », 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        113 

which  seems  to  have  been  used  for  only  a  short  time  before 
the  family  dispersion. 

We  liave,  then,  as  Proto-Semitic  predeterminatives  the  vowels 
a,  i,  u  (wliich  were  displaced  by  the  corresponding  n,  %  and  % 
under  the  later  consonantal  S)'Stem),the  breathings  n,  n,  and  », 
and  the  consonants  a,  5,  a,  and  n,  originally  inflective  forma- 
tives,  themselves  relics  of  old  independent  stems  or  words. 
All  of  these,  save  the  vowels  a,  i,  w,  were  introduced  in  the 
consonantal  period. 

As  indeterminatives  we  found  the  breathings  k,  n,  and  r  to 
be  used,  and  n,  which  is  rarest  as  a  radical  prefix,  does  not 
appear  here  at  all,  being  too  much  like  a  true  consonant. 
These  all  belong  to  the  consonantal  stage  of  Semitism,  as 
also  does  the  vowel  expansion,  already  treated  of,  expressed 
currently  by  *i  and  ''.^ 

As  to  post-determinatives,  we  found  that  all  of  the  conso- 
nants, with  the  possible  exception  of  3,  were  so  employed. 
K,  \  and  ">,  however,  represent  vowels  that  were  used  as  radical 
affixes  before  the  establishment  of  the  consonantal  regime. 
As  in  ProtoAryan,  so  in  Proto-Semitic,  the  regular  place  for 
determinatives  is  the  last  part  of  the  root.  A  study  of  the 
character  of  the  prefixed  and  inserted  radical  letters,  as 
compared  with  the  post^eterminatives,  makes  it  probable 
that  they  would  not  have  been  used  at  all,  except  in  the 
interest  of  a  manifold  development  of  roots  ;  since  the  need 
of  various  expression,  as  ideas  multiplied,  could  be  met  in  no 
other  way ;  the  genius  of  Semitism,  unlike  that  of  Aryanism, 
being  averse  to  the  use  of  compound  words. 

There  are  a  great  many  Proto-Semitic  roots  which,  so  far 

as  can  be  seen,  show  no  determinative  letter  ;  and  there  is, 

of   course,  every  reason  to  suppose  that  many  of  these,  as 

well  as  many  of  the  Aryan  roots,  possessed  three  consonants 

from   the   beginning.     Of   quadriliterals   there  are  no  sure 

examples  in  verb-stems.     In   noun-stems  there   are  a  few 

whose  triliteral  origin  is  apparent. 

1  Of  course  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  making  st  at  the  beginninj^  represent 
a  primary  vowel,  and  in  the  middle  a  consonant ;  for  a  vowel  must  have  been 
heard  already  in  all  vocal  expressions  beginning  and  ending  with  a  consonant. 


114         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

Two  classes  of  cases  yet  remain  to  be  considered.  First, 
we  have  those  triliterals  in  which  the  third  radical  is  the 
same  as  the  first.  This  form,  which  seems  so  inconsistent 
with  the  ordinary  types  of  Semitic  root-structure,  is  accounted 
for  by  an  analysis  of  the  roots  in  question,  from  which  it 
appears  that  they  are  developed  from  shorter  forms  by  the 
repetition  of  the  first  radical. ^  These  also  occur  in  noun- 
stems  in  Proto-Semitic,  not  in  verb-stems,  except,  perhaps, 
in  denominatives.  They  are  common  enough  in  the  several 
dialects  as  developed  later,  where  their  origin  can  be  clearly 
traced. 

Another  and  very  important  class  of  secondary  roots  are 
those  'is  roots  that  end  in  N,  as  the  Proto-Semitic  Nin,  to  go 
in.  With  regard  to  such  cases  we  claim,  without  hesitation, 
in  accordance  with  the  principles  already  established,  that 
the  root  originally  consisted  of  a  consonant  and  a  vowel. 
The  root  was  raised  later  to  the  triliteral  standard  cnly 
graphically,  and  not  in  actual  speech,  just  as  the  Hebrew  tS?, 
not,  is  sometimes  written  xib,  though  it  was  never  anything 
in  sound  but  lo.  The  fact  is,  that  the  Semitic  roots,  before 
the  consonantal  period,  had  as  great  variety  of  form  as  the 
Proto-Aryan.  It  is  an  error  to  maintain  that  all  the  Semitic 
roots  are  ultimately  tri-consonantal ;  but  it  is  also  an  error 
to  hold  either  that  all  were  developed  from  biliterals,  or 
that  in  general  the  bi-consonantal  form  is  their  shortest  or 
ultimate  type. 

Guided  by  the  principles  above  set  forth,  we  shall  now 
attempt  to  draw  up  a  scheme  of  the  possible  and  actual  root- 
forms  in  the  two  systems  of  speech. 

I.  A  Proto-Aryan  root  may  consist : 

(1)  Of  a  consonant  and  a  vowel,  as  'i,^  to  go ;  ki,  to  lie 
down  ;  da,  to  give. 

1  This  throws  light  on  the  origin  of  a  nnmber  of  obscure  words  ;  for  example, 
hah  the  Proto-Semitic  word  for  gate  is,  aa  we  coijecture,  from  the  root  xa, 
to  go  in,  enter. 

'■^  The  Greek  '  is  here  used  to  represent  the  breathing,  corresponding  to  », 
which  precedes  every  vowel-sound  at  the  beginning  of  a  word  or  sellable. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        115 

(2)  Of  a  consonant,  a  vowel,  and  a  consonant,  as  'ac?,  to 
eat ;  pat,  to  fall ;  tor,  to  go  through. 

(3)  Of  two  consonants  and  a  vowel,  as  klu^  to  shut ;  pri, 
to  love  ;  pru  (plu),  to  swim. 

(4)  Of  two  consonants,  a  vowel,  and  a  consonant,  as  dram, 
to  run  ;  prak,  to  ask ;  prat,  to  spread  out. 

(5)  Of  a  consonant,  a  vowel,  and  two  consonants,  as  karty 
to  cut ;  hharg,  to  shine ;  mard,  to  bruise. 

(6)  Of  two  consonants,  a  vowel,  and  two  consonants,  as 
sparg-h,  to  strive  after ;  smard,  to  gnaw  at. 

A  root  in  any  of  these  classes  but  the  first  may  be 
secondary.  In  class  (5)  probably  all,  in  class  (6)  certainly 
all,  are  secondary. 

II.  A  Proto-Semitic  root  (taking  in  both  the  preconso- 
nantal  and  the  consonantal  period),  might  consist 

(1)  Of  a  consonant  and  a  vowel,^  as  jtia  <  ks,  to  go,  or 
go  in  (Heb.,  Ethiop.,  Arabic,  and  Assyrian)  ;  "^it-i  <^  x^,  to 
see  (Heb.,  Arab.,  and  Ethiopic). 

(2)  Of  two  consonants,  as  la,  to  separate  (represented  in 
all  the  dialects)  ;  is,  to  be  strong  (in  all  the  dialects). 

(3)  Of  two  consonants  with  internal  vowel  expansion,  as 
i-x,  to  be  strong,  superior  (Heb.,  Arab.,  and  Assyr.  in  noua 
or  verb  stems)  ;  y\^,  to  be  set  up,  or  established,  exist  (in  all 
the  dialects). 

(4)  Of  a  consonant,  a  consonant,  and  a  vowel,  as  tt^s,  to 
shut  up  or  out  (in  all  the  dialects)  ;  ^h^,  to  let  down,  sus- 
pend (represented  in  all  the  dialects)  ;  ^pj,  to  be  separated, 
pure  (represented  in  Arab.,  Aram.,  Heb.,  and  Assyrian). 

(5)  Of  a  vowel,  a  consonant,  and  a  consonant,  as  ^ax,  to 
be  lost,  perish  (Heb.,  Aram.,  Ethiopic)  ;  bai ,  to  contain,  be 
capable  (Heb.,  Arab.,  and  Assyrian)  ;  mu'^,  to  be  right,  pros- 
perous (in  all  the  dialects). 

(6)  Of  three  consonants,  as  -jna,  to  kneel,  bless  (in  all 
the  dialects)  ;  ir*ip,  to  be  pure,  sacred  (in  all  the  dialects) ; 
tibir,  to  be  strong,  to  rule  (in  all  the  dialects). 

1  In  this  classification  a  vowel  is  cited  as  an  integral  part  of  the  root,  only 
when  it  is  original  and  determinate. 


116         RELATIONS  OF  THE  AYRAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

(7)  Of  four  consonants.  Noun-stems,  as  bna,  iron  (rep- 
resented throughout  the  system) ,  presuppose  a  true  root ; 
and  nm-iB,  to  spread  out  <[  «jnB,  is  certainly  Proto-Semitic, 
being  represented  in  Hebrew,  Arabic,  and  Assyrian. 

A  root  in  any  of  these  classes  but  the  first  and  second 
may  be  secondary.  In  classes  (4)  and  (5)  probably  all, 
and  in  class  (7)  certainly  all,  are  secondary. 

In  the  next  Article  "we  shall  consider  whether  the  morpho- 
logical differences  between  the  two  systems  of  roots  may  be 
reconciled,  and  enter  upon  a  comparison  of  the  roots  that 
may  seem  to  invite  such  treatment. 


CHAPTER    Y. 


COMPARISON    OF    ROOTS. 


Having  in  the  last  Chapter  taken  up  the  most  important 
questions  relating  to  the  formation  of  the  predicative  roots, 
considered  as  primary  and  secondary,  in  the  two  systems  of 
speech,  and  having  presented  a  scheme  of  the  typical  forms 
under  which  these  roots  are  expressed,  it  remains  for  us  to 
determine  how  we  may  reconcile  the  seemingly  discordant 
principles  according  to  which  they  are  formed.  The  main 
difficulty  presented  arises  from  this  fact,  that  while  in  the 
Aryan  system  the  vowel  is  a  significant  part  of  the  root,  in 
the  Semitic,  on  the  other  hand, —  at  least  in  the  inflectional 
period  of  that  idiom, — the  vowel  is  not  essential  to  the 
expression  of  the  radical  idea.  The  difficulty  is  great,  but 
perhaps  not  insurmountable.  The  following  considerations 
are  offered  as  tending  to  show  that  a  reconciliation  is 
possible : 

(1)  The  Semitic  principle  ol  root  structure  bears  evidence 
of  a  secondary  and,  so  to  speak,  artificial  origin.  In  the 
language  as  it  is  presented  to  us,  the  vowel  is  not  co-ordinate 
with,  but  subordinate  to,  the  consonant.  Now,  we  do  not 
cldim  that  the  vowel  once  held  an  equally  important  place 
with  the  consonant.  If  language  is  a  growth,  and  not  an 
institution,  the  two  elements  cannot  have  been  originally 
co-ordinate,  even  in  those  systems  of  speech  where  we  find 
them  currently  of  equal  value.  The  consonants,  as  the 
harder  and  more  stable  elements  of  speech,  must  have  secured 
their  independent  recognition  and  employment  before  the 
vowels,  in  all  early  forms  of  human  language.  But  it  may 
be  said  that  the  Semitic  is  an  exception  to  other  systems  in 

117 


118        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

this,  that  the  vowels  never  secured  complete  autonomy  for 
themselves.  This  is  true ;  but  it  is  not  true  that  they  always 
filled  that  subordinate  function  which  we  see  assigned  to 
them  in  the  full-blown  inflectional  period.  It  has  been  shown 
already  that  vowels  even  formed  a  constituent  part  of  distinct, 
independent  roots ;  we  have  not  only  an  internal  vowel  ex- 
pansion, but  also  a  development  of  secondary  roots  by  the 
use  of  any  one  of  the  three  original  vowels  a,  i,  u,  each  of 
which  has  maintained  a  distinct  and  clearly  recognizable 
influence  until  the  latest  Semitic  times.  We  have  even 
found  that  some  roots  consisted  of  a  consonant  and  a  vowel; 
and  if  it  cannot  be  clearly  shown  in  each  instance  what  that 
vowel  was,  it  still  remains  true  that,  though  it  is  there  sub- 
ordinate to  the  consonant,  its  subordination  is  of  an  essen- 
tially different  kind  from  that  which  is  seen  in  the  function 
of  vowels  in  the  "  strong"  stems  of  the  inflectional  period  ; 
it  is,  in  fact,  due  merely  to  that  indefiniteness  which  we 
have  sliown  to  be  necessary  to  the  vowel  in  all  primordial 
speech.  It  would,  of  course,  be  absurd  to  maintain  that  in 
the  earliest  Semitic  the  vowel  was  of  equal  importance  with 
the  consonant  for  the  expression  of  radical  ideas.  But  it 
would  be  just  as  absurd  to  hold  that  it  counted  for  nothing. 
If  there  is  anything  which  can  be  maintained  with  certainty 
as  a  necessary  feature  of  primitive  language  in  general,  and 
of  the  constitution  of  its  roots,  it  is  this,  —  that  in  both  the 
vowel  played  an  independent  part.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
only  sure  induction  from  the  phenomena  of  root  develop- 
ment, as  we  have  studied  the  subject,  is,  that  the  vowel  was 
subordinate  and  fluctuating.^ 

(2)  Tlie  Proto-Aryan  roots  also  give  evidence  of  a  previous 

1  Here,  as  well  as  in  related  discussions,  it  makes  no  difference  what  theory  is 
held  as  to  the  nature  of  "  roots,"  whether  we  regard  them  as  having  once  been 
actual  words,  or  as  being  mere  abstractions  —  forms  theoretically  assumed  as  the 
basis  of  actual  words.  Unless  the  distinction  between  primary  and  secondary 
roots,  to  whose  elucidation  the  last  chapter  was  devoted,  is  an  utter  delusion, 
we  shall  have,  upon  either  theory,  to  go  back  of  the  current  triliterals,  if  we  wish 
to  determine  these  ultimate  forms  to  which  the  name  of  "root"  is  applied  ;  and 
in  the  last  analysis  the  indefiniteness  as  well  as  the  originality  of  the  vowel  in 
snch  forms,  will  be  equally  apparent  under  either  view. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        119 

stage  ill  their  history  when  the  vowel  did  not  possess  the 
certain  and  stable  character  manifest  in  their  current  forms. 
At  least,  it  is  allowable  to  infer  as  much  as  this  from  the 
fact  that  so  many  forms  are  found  expressing  the  same  or 
kindred  ideas  which  agree  in  their  consonants  and  differ  in 
their  vowels.  Thus  wc  have  bhag^  to  eat ;  bhug,  to  enjoy  ; 
mand  and  mund,  to  decorate ;  mad,  to  be  excited ;  mud,  to 
be  gay,  joyful ;  skad  and  skid,  to  split ;  as  and  is,  to  throw ; 
di  and  du  >  div,  to  shine ;  pa  and  pi,  to  drink  ;  bhad  and 
bhid,  to  pierce,  cleave  ;  si,  to  bind,  and  su,  to  sew  ;  ska  and 
sku,  to  cover ;  and  a  multitude  of  other  divergent  associated 
forms. ^  These  cannot  very  well  be  regarded  as  primary  and 
secondary  roots  respectively,  because  there  is  no  development 
of  meaning  and  no  addition  or  degeneration  of  form.^ 

At  this  point  the  two  great  systems  of  speech  seem  to 
meet  We  find  Semitic  roots  in  which  the  vowel  is  indeter- 
minate, and  yet  an  independent  constituent ;  and  we  find 
Aryan  roots  with  fixed  consonants,  but  varying  vowels.  Both 
phenomena  are  just  what  would  be  expected  in  the  necessary 
development  of  early  language ;  and  the  subsequent  diver- 
gence of  the  two  idioms  in  root  formation  can  also  be 
explained.  In  both  systems  definiteness  of  expression  was 
aimed  at  equally  and  necessarily.  In  the  Aryan  system  this 
was  secured  by  giving  greater  precision  to  the  vowel  elements 
in  each  utterance,  till  at  last  they  were  made  co-ordinate 
with  the  consonants  in  every  respect.  In  Semitic,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  original  vagueness  of  the  vowel  remained, 
and  definiteness  as  well  as  variety  of  expression  was  sought 
through  the  multiplication  of  consonants,  either  with  or 
without  the  use  of  determinative  letters.  Hence  we  are 
prepared  to  find  that  while  tlie  bulk  of  the  current  Aryan 
roots  have  two  consonants,  and  are  monosyllabic,  the  bulk  of 
the  Semitic  have  three,  and  were  perhaps  originally  dissyllabic, 

^  Such  forms  may  be  collected  and  collated  <'rora  Pott's  Wurzel-Lexicon,  or 
more  readily  from  Fick's  Vergl.  Worterbuch  d.  indogerm.  Sprachen,  Vol.  i. 

2  This  extensive  group  must  be  distinguished  from  that  small  class  of  forms 
with  vowel  variations  which  we  cited  in  the  last  Chapter  as  consisting  of  secondarj 


120         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

Hence  also  it  happened  that  in  Semitic  the  vowel  elements 
had  less  precision  and  importance  in  each  utterance,  till  at 
last  they  lost  their  independence  entirely,  and  became  sub- 
ordinate to  the  consonants  in  every  respect.^ 

From  this  it  follows  that  whatever  roots  in  the  two  idioms 
are  to  be  adduced  for  comparison  must  be  represented  by 
their  consonants  alone.  This,  of  course,  need  not  be  any 
bar  to  an  association  of  such  roots,  if  they  are  eligible  in 
other  respects.  For  even  within  the  Aryan  range  alone  a 
consonantal  formula  might  often  be  chosen  as  comprehending 
the  same  idea  under  various  vowel  variations.  Thus,  in 
accordance  with  examples  of  roots  just  cited,  MD  might 
convey  the  general  notion  of  highly  wrought  feeling,  and 
Sp  (  S  -|-  an  indeterminate  vowel)  might  stand  for  the  idea 
of  fastening  together  ;  just  as  in  the  Semitic  sphere  m  means 
to  be  high,  and  i«3  means  to  go. 

We  thus  see  how  the  Proto-Aryan  and  Proto-Semitic  roots 
may  be  brought  together,  so  far  as  the  forms  are  concerned. 
It  remains  for  us  to  determine  what  kinds  of  roots  are  to  be 
eompared  as  regards  their  signification. 

(1)  First,  it  is  evident  that  we  must  exclude  those  roots 
which  are  clearly  onomatopoetic.  In  many  languages  through- 
out the  world  we  find  the  same  or  like  forms  occasionally 
Hsed  to  express  the  same  ideas,  when  the  sound  seems  to 
be  a  sort  of  echo  of  the  sense,  as  when  words  seem  to  be 

*  J.  Grill,  in  an  elaborate  Essay  in  the  Zeitschrift  d.  dentschen  morgendl. 
Gesellschaft,  Vol.  xxvii.  pp.  425-460,  attempts  to  show  that  the  roots  of  the 
two  systems  may  be  unified  in  structure  by  reducing  them  to  a  hypothetical 
stage  of  development  in  which  the  vowel  a  alone  was  heard  in  them  all  (p.  449). 
Under  those  circumstances  he  thinks  the  vowels  would  not  count  for  anything  as 
determining  the  specific  expression  of  the  root-idea,  since  they  would  be  the  same 
in  all  the  forms.  The  validity  of  this  conclusion  depends  upon  the  correctness 
of  the  assumption  of  such  a  form  of  speech,  an  "  Alpha-Sprache  "  as  he  terms 
it.  But  there  is  no  strong  evidence  of  it.  The  preponderance  of  the  vowel  a 
in  Aryan  roots  may  be  accounted  for  on  the  principle  that  it  is  the  most  com- 
mon of  sounds  in  general,  not  necessarily  the  only  primary  vowel.  The  reader 
is  referred  also  to  the  criticisms  upon  the  similar,  but  not  so  far-reaching,  theory  of 
Fick,  made  in  our  last  Article.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  abundant  evidence 
of  the  original  vagueness  and  variations  of  the  vowel-sounds  in  the  roots  of  both 
»ystems. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         121 

simply  imitative  of  the  movements  of  the  objects  of  nature,  or 
of  the  utterances  of  men  or  lower  animals.  Some  writers  have 
made  undue  use  of  this  fact,  and  applied  it  to  the  explanation 
of  many  cases  in  which  onomatopeia  has  had  no  part.  It 
offers  an  easy  solution  of  innumerable  difficulties,  and  can 
often  be  plausibly  appealed  to  when  no  etymon  is  at  hand  to 
which  a  given  form  may  be  referred.  Thus  the  comparer  of 
obscure  roots  runs  a  double  risk.  On  the  one  hand,  he  is 
liable  to  cite  forms  as  being  of  kindred  derivation  whose 
likeness  is  due  to  their  origin  in  the  imitative  tendencies  of 
early  speakers ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  he  is  in  danger  of 
being  accused  of  citing  cases  which  are  all  "  more  or  less 
onomatopoetic,"  and  therefore  not  necessarily  of  common 
origin.  Now,  while  it  is  true  that  such  a  charge  has  often 
been  made  unjustly  against  etymologists,  it  is  not  to  be 
denied  that  it  has  always  been  made  with  some  justice  against 
those  who  have  attempted  to  compare  Aryan  and  Semitic 
roots.  It  will  be  our  aim  to  avoid  occasion  for  such  an 
accusation,  except  as  it  may  come  from  those  who  see  in 
onomatopoeia  the  universal  solvent  of  etymological  diffi- 
culties, and  would  therefore  give  no  credit  to  any  comparison 
whatever  made  within  our  present  sphere. 

(2)  It  is  also  evident  that  we  ought  to  include  only  those 
forms  which  express  common  and  elementary  notions.  This 
must  be  insisted  upon  rigorously  ;  and  the  principle  is  adopted 
not  only  for  our  guidance,  but  also  as  our  defence  against  the 
opponents  of  all  attempts  at  comparison  in  this  obscure  region. 

It  is  clear,  in  the  first  place,  that  if  the  two  families  were 
originally  one  they  must  have  separated  at  a  time  when 
only  the  most  rudimentary  arts  of  life  were  practised,  and 
the  most  primitive  conceptions  of  the  world  without  and 
within  the  mind  were  attained.  Hence  a  combination  of 
forms  conveying  conceptions  peculiar  to  a  more  advanced 
state  of  thought  must  be  regarded  with  suspicion.  Coinci- 
dences between  forms  expressing  such  notions  are,  indeed, 
not  common ;  but  they  have  been  used  too  freely  by  com- 
parers, and  discredit  has  thus  been  cast  upon  such  investiga- 
tions in  general. 


122         llELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

It  is  manifest,  in  the  second  place,  that  if  a  large  number 
of  notions  clearly  elementary  are  found  to  be  expressed  in 
the  two  idioms  by  like  sounds,  in  whose  production  onoma- 
topoeia has  had  no  share,  the  evidence  in  favor  of  previous 
unity  is  very  strong.  We  have  not  only  the  fact  of  a  coin- 
cidence of  such  words  as  we  should  expect  to  find  agreeing, 
but  also  the  consideration  that  the  occurrence  of  such  coin- 
cidences ouglit,  if  we  judge  from  the  analogy  of  languages  in 
general,  to  argue  the  existence  at  one  time  of  many  more 
similar  phenomena  which  are  now  lost  to  view.  For  if  we 
regard  any  great  family  of  tongues,  —  the  Aryan,  for  ex- 
ample,—  it  is  surprising,  as  well  as  instructive  for  our 
present  purpose,  to  note  how  many  of  the  most  elementary 
notions  are  expressed  differently  in  the  different  dialects, 
and  how  many  expressions  once  common  to  the  whole  family 
have  been  dropped  in  one  or  several  of  them  in  tlie  course 
of  ages.  We  must  not,  and  ought  not,  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  question,  to  look  for  many  agreements ;  and  if,  after 
all,  the  number  is  found  to  be  considerable,  the  evidence  in 
favor  of  an  original  unity,  which  rises  with  cumulative  force 
with  every  additional  case,  becomes  well-nigh  irresistible. 

These,  then,  are  the  conditions  under  which  forms  may 
be  cited  for  comparison.  If  it  is  urged  that  it  is  not  always 
easy  to  determine  what  notions  are  primary  or  elementary, 
and  what  are  secondary,  the  answer  is  that  we  are  not  left 
to  a  priori  judgments  alone  in  the  matter ;  for  the  science 
of  etymology  has  pushed  its  researches  into  various  lan- 
guages so  far  and  so  successfully  that  we  can  appeal  to  the 
analogy  of  similar  developments  outside  our  proper  sphere  ; 
and  this  is  the  surest  resource  for  those  who  seek  to  have 
light  thrown  upon  the  workings  of  the  human  mind  as  they 
are  revealed  in  language. 

Words  in  common  relating  to  Fire. 

If  the  Aryans  and  Semites  came  from  a  common  stock  we 
should  expect  to  find  some  trace  of  their  early  civilization  in 
their  common  possession  of  one  or  more  words  for  burning. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        123 

Fire  was  one  of  the  earliest  discoveries  of  mankind,  and  plays 
an  important  part  in  the  legendary  and  mythical  systems  of 
most  primitive  communities.  The  fact  is  that  we  find  no  less 
than  four  words  belonging  to  both  systems,  comprising  most 
of  the  Proto-Aryan  terms  relating  to  that  subject,  and  a  large 
part  of  the  Proto-Semitic. 

1.  Proto-Aryan  hav  (ku)  ;  Proto-Semitic  is ,  to  burn. 

The  Proto-Aryan  character  of  the  root  is  proved  by  the  fol- 
lowing forms  :  Gr.  Kalw  for  kuF-lo),  to  burn  ;  Skr.  qona  (for  pri- 
mary A^aw-wa)  flaming  red,  and  as  a  noun, fire  (see  the  Peters- 
burg Diet.,  and  cf.  Curtius,  5.ed.,  p.  145  ;  Pick  i.  p.  61).  That 
it  was  developed  from  an  earlier  ku  appears  further  from  the 
occurrence  of  secondary  roots,  meaning  to  shine,  most  of 
which  are  found  only  in  Sanskrit;  one,  however,  kvid  (whence 
Eng.  white')  being  Proto-Aryan.  —  For  the  Proto-Semitic  root 
we  may  compare  Heb.  nis,  Assyr.  Jcav-u,^  Arab.     'V    Syr. 

]as,  to  burn.  The  root  la  here  inlierent  was  pTObal)ly  devel- 
oped from  an  earlier  ^s  like  the  Proto-Aryan,  though  this  is 
not  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  comparison. 

2.  Proto-Aryan  kad  (kand)  ;  Proto-Semitic  "np,  to  burn. 
This  is  one  of  the  most  wide-spread  of  Porto-Aryan  roots. 

In  Sanskrit  it  appears  in  some  of  its  senses  with  a  prothetic  s 
(cf.  tan  and  stan,  to  sound),  in  the  sense  of  glowing,  for  ac- 
cording to  the  Petersburg  Diet,  the  root  cand,  to  shine,  is 
from  qcand.  But  kand-u.,  a  fire-pan,  shows  no  trace  of  it.  Nor 
do  any  of  the  hometymous  forms  outside  the  Sanskrit,  unless 
the  Gr.  ^av6-6^,  yellow,  is  connected  with  the  root.  Gr. 
KavB-apof;,  a  coal,  Lat.  cand-ere,  cand-idus,  in-cend-o,  Anglo- 
Saxon  hdt ^^ng.  hot,  are  a  few  out  of  the  many  examples 
that  might  be  adduced.  Remotely  related  seems  to  be  the 
Skr.  i^vdh  (for  kudh),  to  purify,  which  is  probably  a  by-form 
of  kadh  found  in  Gr.  Ka6-ap6<i,  pure  and  Lat.  cas-tus  for  cad- 
tus.     The  assumption  that  the  form  with  s  is  primary  (Fick, 

1  In  these  special  comparisons  when  the  Assyrian  roots  are  represented  by 
the  Kal  infinitive,  u  must  be  understood  to  be  the  formative  suffix.  Sometimes 
they  will  be  indicated  by  the  consonants  alone. 


124         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

i.  p.  241  ;  Curtius,  p.  622)  is  due  to  an  over-deference  to  the 
Sanskrit.  The  primary  form  is  had ;  the  principle  of  nasali- 
zation resulting  in  kand,  and  the  use  of  a  prothetic  5  in  cases 
similar  to  the  present,  were  discussed  in  our  last  Article. 
The   Proto-Semitic   "np   is  illustrated  by  the  Heb.  ^i?^ ,  Arab. 

j^"  ,  Syr.  jjal,  to  burn,  in  which  •»  is  a  predeterminative.  Also 

by  the  Heb.  n'i|3,  to  kindle  fire,  Arab.      j^-,  and  Syr.  ^^^_p, 

of  similar  meaning,  in  which  the  n  is  a  post-determinative. 

3.  Proto- Aryan  kar  QtaV)^  to  heat,  to  cook;  Proto-Semitic 
^p ,  to  roast,  to  fry. 

kar  (kal)  is  represented  by  Skr.  (^rd,  to  boil,  cook,  from 
(^ar  (==kar^  as  mnd  from  man ;  Lat.  cal-eo,  cal-or,  cre-mare, 
and  several  other  Aryan  forms  —  ^P  appears  with  a  post- 
determinative  vowel  in  Heb.  rh^ ,  Arab.  "^  and  T^- ,  and 
Ethiop.  ^A®,  to  fry,  Chald.  i<)p,  to  roast,  to  burn,  Assyr. 
kal-^,  to  burn.  This  is  perhaps  the  most  striking  combination 
of  all  the  group ;  for  we  see  here  that  a  term  used  by  both 
families  in  the  sense  of  burning  was  also  specialized  in  both 
so  as  to  apply  to  the  preparation  of  food  by  fire. 

4.  Proto-Aryan  us,  to  burn  ;  Proto-Semitic  ©k,  fire  (prob- 
ably =  the  burning  thing). 

Skr.  ush,  to  burn,  scorch  ;  Gr.  av-w  for  ava-co,  to  kindle, 
eri-oy  for  eva-co,  to  singe  ;  Lat.  ur-o  for  us-o,  to  burn  ;  Old 
Norse  us-H,  fire  ;  A.  S.  ps-el,  0.  H.  Germ,  ns-el,  ashes. — Cf. 

Heb.  TTK ,  Chald.  xtsx ,  Syr.  ]jL^] ,  Eth.  AO^ ,  Assyr.  'w-m, 

fire.  There  is  also  an  Aryan  by-form  vas,  to  enlighten, 
which  is  commonly  thought  to  be  the  earlier  root.  Whether 
the  Semitic  words  have  arisen  from  lai,  through  the  dropping 
of  the  original  v  or  w,^  or  whether  they  themselves  represent 
the  earlier  form,  must  remain  undecided.  This  combination 
is  highly  probable,  though  not  so  certain  as  the  otlier  three. 
In  accounting  for  the  common  possession  of  these  similar 

1  According  to  the  usage  which  became  universal  in  Assyrian.  —  Tick  (ii.  p. 
27)  combines  the  Teutonic  word  for  ashes,  as-gan,  with  the  Lat.  ar-eo  for  as-eo 
and  ard-€0  for  asd-eo,  pointing  to  a  root  as,  to  be  hot. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         125 

forms,  it  is  apparent  that  onomatopoeia  must  be  excluded,  as 
well  as  the  theory  of  a  chance  coincidence.  The  only  refuge 
left  to  doubters  is  the  assumption  that  one  language  borrowed 
the  sounds  from  the  other.  But  why  there  should  have  been 
any  borrowing  at  all  of  such  primitive  essential  matters,  or 
why  it  should  have  been  done  on  so  large  a  scale,  is  not  easy 
to  imagine. 

Words  for  Shining. 

5.  Proto- Aryan  bhar  (bhaV)  ;  Proto-Semitic  nra  (na),  to 
shine. 

The  Proto-Aryan  form  points,  according  to  what  was  said 
on  comparative  phonology,  to  an  earlier  bar.  It  is  represented 
in  Skr.  bhdl-a,  star  and  brightness,  bhdl-^,  sun  (also  in  bhalla, 
etc.  a  bear,  from  its  sleekness  ?)  Gr.  <f)aX-rjp6'i,  shining ; 
<f>a\-i6<;,  white ;  Lith.  bdl-ti,  to  be  white,  with  other  Slavonic 
words  cited  by  Fick  (i.  p.  152).  Curtius  (p.  297)  suggests 
that  there  may  have  been  no  root  bhal  (bhar^  at  all,  but  that 
la  may  have  a  nominal  suffix  attached  to  the  common  root 
bha^  to  shine.  The  Slavonic  forms  seem  to  exclude  this,  and 
also  the  circumstance  that  there  are  two  roots  bharg-  and 
bhark,  of  similar  meaning,  which  can  only  be  regarded  as 
secondaries  from  an  intermediate  bhar.  —  In  Semitic  we  cite 
the  Heb.  ^ra  as  in  "I'^H^  >  brilliant ;  Assyr.  buhar-u  and  bilr-u, 
splendor;  Arab,  r^?  to  shine;  Syr.  ^ais,  in  Shaphel,  to 
glorify,  like  conj.  iii.  of  '^.    In  these  n  is  an  indetermina- 

tive  ;  cf .  Eth.  HCU,  to  shine  forth,  and  Arab.  °  [^"^  ^  a  clear 
proof.  '^ 

6.  The  Proto-Aryan  bha,  to  shine,  above  referred  to,  we 
might  plausibly  compare  with  a  hypothetical  Proto-Semitic  na 
shown  in  nna ,  sna ,  pnn,  to  be  white,  glistening,  variously 
represented  in  Heb.,  Syr.,  and  Arabic.  This  would  require 
us  to  assume  that  a  strong  breathing  was  developed  inde- 
pendently in  Semitic.  The  combination  is  very  instructive 
in  the  light  of  others  of  the  same  group  that  are  more 
harmonious. 


126        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

7.  Proto-Aryan  bhark  (bhrak),  to  shine,  gleam  ;  Proto- 
Seraitic  p^2,  to  shine,  lighten. 

Cf.  Skr.  Mr^9  (abundantly  attested  by  the  grammarians, 
thougli  not  proved  in  the  classical  writings ;  see  the  Peters- 
burg Diet.),  for  bhrdk,  to  shine  ;  Gr.  <fiopK-6^,  white,  shining 
(Hesychius)  ;  Goth,  bairh-to,  bright,  cf.  Eng.  brig-ht,  with 
other  Teutonic  as  well  as  Slavonic  forms,  cited  by  Pick,  i.  p. 
152.  —  For  Semitic  correspondences,  cf.  Arab.  '.'^Jj  Syr. 
^j^,  Eth.  r\J^^,  to  shine,  and  to  lighten;  Heb.  p-n^jto 

lighten,  and  p^a,  lightning,  Assyr.  p-^n,  whence  birk-^ 
lightning.! 

8.  Proto-Aryan  bharg;  to  shine  ;  Proto-Semitic  aba ,  to 
shine. 

Cf.  Skr,  bhrdj,  Zend  bardz,  to  shine  ;  Gr.  (f>key-(o,  to  shine, 
burn  ;  hat.  Jlag-ro,  to  burn  ;  A.  S.  blic-an,  to  shine  (cf.  Eng. 
bleach,  and  Germ,  bleic/i). —  In  Semitic  we  have  the  Heb.  jba 
(in  Hiph.),  to  be  bright,  cheerful,  Arab,  Ij^  ,  to  shine  forth, 

be  clear.  This  Proto-Semitic  root  has  no  associations  with 
any  forms  with  medial  h,  and  in  consideration  of  the  essen- 
tial character  of  the  I  sound,  we  may  without  presumption 
assign  it  to  the  root  "la  exemplified  in  the  foregoing  cases. 

Accepting  number  6.  as  a  highly  probable  combination,  we 
have  in  Proto-Aryan  bhd^  bhar^  bhark  and  bharg.  The 
last  three  forms  are  the  principal  ones  developed  fi-om  bhd, 
and  with  them  we  find  in  Semitic  exact  correspondences  in 
form  and  sense,  which  seem  to  preclude  the  possibility  of 
merely  accidental  resemblance. 

1  See  this  with  other  forms  in  Assyrian  established  by  Lenormant,  Etude  sur 
quelques  parties  des  syllabaires  cun^iformes,  p,  231.  Most  of  the  Semitic 
words  mean  both  to  be  bright  and  to  lighten,  and  though  the  latter  predom- 
inates, the  former  is  the  primary  sense.  The  resemblance  of  p"ia  to  many 
words  meaning  to  cleave,  split,  might  suggest  that  the  word  for  lightning  arose 
from  this  notion,  and  that  the  sense  of  shining  was  secondary.  But  the  natural 
order  of  the  ideas,  as  well  as  the  analogy  of  other  languages,  shows  that  the 
name  for  lightning  was  drawn  from  the  idea  of  its  brightness.  So  with  our 
word  itself,  with  the  German  Blitz,  the  French  iclair,  the  Ij&imfulgur,  and  even 
ftdjnen. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        127 

9.  Proto-Aryan  bhas;  Proto-Semitic  ya,  laa,  to  shine. 

The  Proto-Aryan  character  of  bhas  is  pretty  safely  estab- 
lished by  Pick,  i.  p.  153.  Cf.  Skr.  bhds,  to  shine,  bhds^ 
bhds-u,  splendor;  Zend  banh,  light  (nh  for  a  primary  s  ;  see 
Schleicher,  Compendium  d.  vergl.  Gramm.  4.  ed.  p.  190), 
with  Slavo-Teutonic  bas-a,  bare,  manifest  =  Eng.  bare. —  In 
Semitic  we  have   the  form  "j^n  clearly  presented  in  Arab. 

J^" ,  to  shine,  probably  appearing  also  in  Heb.  pr.  noun 

ni?  ;   cf .  Jaj  1  to   be   white,   shining,  J^  (J  ^"^  JoLj  '  S^^* 

^in  >  ns-«a  egs^}  with  hometymous  noun-stems  in  Aramaic  and 
Arabic.     The  root  tj-'s  seems  to  conyey  the  same  idea,  for  we 

find  j^  along  with  J^'  with  a  like  meaning ;  cf.  j^iliJ 

and^i;,  to  be  jo.ful.     The  last  na.ed  root  suggests  the 

Proto-Semitic  name  for  flesh,  which  we  may  represent  by 
Heb.  "lias .  It  was  probably  so  called  from  its  bright  color. 
Perhaps  ^irs ,  a  Semitic  word  for  cooking,  came  from  the 
same  source,  as  Lat.  frig--o,  Gr.  ^piry-co,  to  roast,  are  con- 
nected with  the  root  b/iarg  (No.  8). 

10.  Proto-Aryan  ark  (rak')  ;  Proto-Semitic  P*i,  to  shine. 
The  root  ark  is  proved  from  the  Skr.  arc ,  to  shine  forth, 

arc -is.,  splendor,  and  especially  ark-as,  the  sun,  as  compared 
with  Gr.  -^-XeK-Tcop,  the  sun,  or  sun-god.  See  Curtius,  5  ed., 
p.  137.  Pick,  1.  p.  22,  cites  a  number  of  Keltic  words  point- 
ing to  the  root  lak  <^rak  as  the  Gr.  -qkiK-roip  as  well  as 
rfkeK-rpou,  amber,  point  to  a  root  alk  <^ark.  With  rak  we 
may  connect  as  a  by-form  the  common  Proto-Aryan  root 
ruk  Qnh),  to  shine,  and  with  ark  the  root  arg  of  the  same 
meaning,  whence  Skr.,  Zend,  Gr.,  Lat.,  and  Oscan  words  for 
silver,  ark  :  arg  =  rak :  rag,  to  color,  a  wide-spread  Proto- 
Aryan  root.     The  root  rdg,  to  shine  forth,  is  a  further  devel- 

1  Miihlan  and  Volck  in  their  edition  (the  eighth)  of  Gesenius  Handworterbuch 
(Leipzig,  1878),  make  the  notion  of  whiteness,  shining,  to  be  secondary,  and 
derived  from  the  words  for  egg  in  the  different  dialects.  But  our  citation  of  verb- 
Items  shows  this  to  be  impossible.     Cf.  the  derivation  of  albumen. 


128         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

opment,  whence  the  Skr.  rdg,  to  shine,  and  the  ProtoAiyan 
word  for  king. — The  existence  of  the  corresponding  Semitic 
root  p^  is  not  so  evident  at  first,  but  is  easily  established.  It 
appears  most  usually  represented  with  a  predeterminative  i  as 
in  p"i%  whose  sense  of  shining  is  attested  by  its  derivatives  in 
all  the  dialects.     The  predominant  meaning  is  to  be  yellow, 

whence  a  name  for  gold:  Eth.  (^C^ ,  Arab.    "!.*',  coined 

money  ;  cf .  Heb.  "P^JPT,  •>  as  applied  to  gold,  Ps.  Ixviii.  14, 
Assyr.  rakrafcku,  yellow,^  also  arku  and  araku,  yellow,  green  ; 

Heb.  PT";,  green;  P'y;;.,  Syr.  Jx^L,  green  herbs.    Cf.  also  Heb. 

VPT-  >  paleness,   yellowness,  which   like   Arab.      \^. ,    also 

.?  j ,  denotes  a  disease  in  men,  and  a  blight  in  grain,  produc- 
ing a  yellow  complexion.  These  several  meanings  can  only 
be  explained  from  the  comprehensive  sense  of  shining  in- 
herent in  the  root.^  But  we  have  the  root  in  a  simpler  form, 
which  puts  this  meaning  beyond  doubt.  From  some  of  the 
Assyrian  and  Arabic  forms  above  cited,  it  appears  that  the  i  is 

not  primary.  Now  we  cite  further,  Arab.      Y ,  med.  Waw,  to 

be  bright,  clear  (used  of  wine  and  the  eyes)  ;    "..C ,  med.Ye, 

to  shine  brightly  (used  of  the  mirage')  ;    "-"Sl^  ^^  shimmer. 

Still  further,  the  Arab.j^l,  to   shine,   and  j[j^| ,  splendor, 

show  that  here  as  well  as  in  Greek  and  Keltic  the  primary  r 
was  sometimes  replaced  by  an  I;  and  a  comparison  of  all  the 
Semitic  words  shows  clearly  that  the  primary  form  was  p-i, 
which  is  thus  assimilated  perfectly  to  the  Proto-Aryan  ark 
or  rak. 

1  See  Friedr.  Delitzsch,  Assyr.  Studien.  i.  p.  105. 

2  The  most  instructive  analogy  that  we  know  of  is  the  Proto-Aryan  root 
ghar.  Meaning  primarily  to  shine  or  glow,  a  large  number  of  its  deriva- 
tives show  the  signification  of  being  yellow  or  golden,  and  green.  So  the  Skr. 
harila,  green  and  yellow,  hirana,  gold,  Gr.  xp^o'sSi  gold,  for  xp'"'"'<^s,  and  Goth. 
gulth,  Eng.  gold.  Derivatives  are  even  found  in  Zend  and  Slavonic  (see  Fick,  i. 
p.  81),  having  the  sense  of  green  shoots  of  plants,  as  with  pn*!. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        129 


Words  for  Cutting  and  Separating. 

11.  Proto-Aryan  bhar ;  Proto-Semitic  ^a,  to  cut,  to  pierce. 
The  value  of  these  roots  in  the  present  discussion  is  their 

agreement  not  simply  in  the  general  sense,  but  in  two  allied 
meanings.  For  Mar,  cf.  Zend  bar,  to  cut,  to  bore  ;  Gr. 
^p-o<i,  a  plough,  (pdp-a/y^,  a  cleft,  ravine,  (f>dp-vy^,  opening, 
gullet ;  Latfor-are,  Eng.  bore. — -a  is  illustrated  by  the  Heb. 

n^a ,  to  cut ;  Arab.  "^ ,  f ll '  *^  ^^^'  ^^^^  ^"*  '  Assyr.  nia  ,^ 
to  cut  into,  grave ;  also  by  xna ,  to  cut  out,  form,  create,  rep- 
resented in  most  of  the  dialects.  It  shows  also  in  forms  with 
consonantal  postdeterminatives,  as  na,  to  pierce,  the  root  of 
the  Proto-Semitic  ^t-ia ,  iron,  nna ,  to  pass  through,  seems  to 
have  had  the  same  origin,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  Assyr. 
bvruhi, spear?   Arab,  ^^y  .jto  cut,  appears  m  ^.,  cuttmg, 

yfj'j ,  an  axe  ;  cf.  Eth-  r{\C^  •>  bronze,  from  the  same  root, 

as  i>n?'  iron,<t^a.  Naturally  the  simple  form  "^a  has  mainly 
the  general  primary  sense  of  separating,  but  in  Ethiopic  we 
have  n.4-4 '  meaning  to  pass  through,  perforate.  The  idea 
of  boring,  however,  is  most  distinctively  conveyed  by  the 
form  with  indeterminative  n,  ixa  (as  in  the  Arab.  K  ^  to 
pierce),  whence  the  word  for  a  well  in  Heb.,  Syr.,  Arab.,  and 
Assyrian.     Again  the  Arab.   '(J,  to  explore,  investigate  = 

Heb.  --a  (Eccl.  ix.  1),  points  clearly  to  the  same  origin  with 
a  figurative  application.  With  a  stronger  indeterminative, 
"ira  means  to  cut  off,  consume  (with  various  associated  senses 
in  most  of  the  dialects) ;  and  with  a  predeterminative,  "lan 
means  to  divide  up,  in  Hebrew  and  Arabic. 

12.  Proto-Aryan  bhad  (bhid)  ;  Proto-Semitic  "la,  to  divide, 
split  open. 

Cf .  Skr.  bhid,  to  split ;    Lat.  find-o,  fid-i ;  Goth,  beif-an, 
A.  S.  bit-an  =  Eng.  bite.     The  Lat.  fod-io,  to  dig ;  cf.  Gr. 

1  A  very  jirohable  root  ;  see  Friedr.  Delitzsch,  Assyrische  Studien,  i.  p.  9. 
^  See  Schrader,  Keilinschriften  u.  d.  Alte  Testament,  p.  106. 


130         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

^6d-po<i,  a  pit,  seems  to  point  to  an  old  by-form  bhad. — The 
root  ^3  lias  a  considerable  development.     In  Heb.  ^a    means 

to  divide,  and  keep  apart  =  Arab,    jj     the  same  root  having 

derivatives  in  Aramaic  also  ;  with  b  as  a  post-determinative, 
b'la  means  to  divide,  and  with  p  the  primary  meaning  of 
splitting  comes  out  in  pna ,  to  cleave.  With  s  as  an  indeter- 
minative,  we  have  nsa,  to  separate  from,  represented  by  noun 
or  verb  stems,  in  Heb.,  Arab.,  and  Ethiopic.  The  physical 
notion  of  cutting  asunder  is  better  preserved  in  the  kindred 
root  na,  which  has  a  wide  representation  throughout  the 
Semitic  system. 

13.  Proto-Aryan  pat ;  Proto-Semitic  n&,  bb  ,  to  separate, 
open. 

These  roots  apparently  stand  remotely  connected  with  No. 
12.  We  find  pat  represented  by  the  common  consent  of 
leading  etymologists  (see  Fick,  i.  p.  135  ;  Curtius,  5  ed.,  p. 
211 ;  Pott,  W.  Wb.,  iv.  p.  154),  in  the  Gr.  irlr-vTjfii,  Trer-dv- 
vvfit,  to  spread  out,  open  out,  and  irer-aXo^^  spread  out ;  Lat. 
pat-co,  to  open,  and  pat-ulus  ^^  irer-aXo'q  ;  A.  S.  fath-7n^  the 
out-spread  arms  =  Eng. /a^/iom.  We  should  also  add,  with 
Fick,  the  Zend  path-ana^  wide. — The  Semitic  na  has  the  fun- 
damental notion  of  separating.  So  the  Heb.  ns,  with  the  cor- 
responding Arabic  and  Ethiopic,  means  to  break  off ;  hence 
various  noun-stems  in  these  dialects,  meaning  a  fragment  or 
morsel,  or,  as  we  say,  a  bit  (see  No.  12).  But  the  simplest 
modifications  of  the  root  have  precisely  the  sense  that  pre- 
dominates in  Proto-Aryan.    Thus  the  Heb.  niE> ,  as  illustrated 

by  the  Aral).  ^^(J  and  its  own  derivative  rs ,  means  to  spread 

out,  while  nns,^  in  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  Assyr.,  signifies  to 
spread  out  and  open.  In  Heb.  and  Syr.,  Arab,  and  Eth., 
nrs  means  also  to  open,  while  in  Heb.  sro  means  to  open ; 
and  ^ro ,  to  interpret,  has  developed  its  meaning  obviously 
from  the  same  primary  notion.  Cf.  "".aB ,  to  cleave,  open,  in 
Heb.,  Assyr.,  and  Arab.,  from  a  kindred  root,  bb. 

1  The  name  PB|; ,  Japhet,  of  the  ancestor  of  the  Aryan  race,  from  SlPiB,  is  an 
historical,  if  not  a  linguistic,  connecting  link  between  the  two  families. 

/ 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        131 

14.  Proto-Aryan  park;  Proto-Semitic  pns  and  iib,  to 
cleave. 

The  root  park  does  not  appear  in  any  Aryan  verb-stem, 
but  we  assume  it  to  be  represented  in  the  Skr.  paraq-u  (cf . 
parq-^i,  para(^-vadha,  par<^-vaclha'),  an  axe  or  hatchet,  and  the 
corresponding  Gr,  7reA,e/c-t»9^  TreXeK-l^ca,  to  hew  off.  Curtius, 
(5  ed.,  p.  164),  refers  these  forms  to  a  root  ttKuk,  to  beat, 
from  which  irXay  in  TfKrjaa-w  and  Lat.  plang-o  arise  through 
softening.  That  this  is  wrong  seems  to  us  clear,  because  (1) 
the  Sanskrit  forms  show  clearly  that  the  original  root  was 
WQtprcik  but/»ar&,  and  (2)  all  the  Greek  and  Sanskrit  words 
contain  only  the  idea  of  hewing  or  cleaving,  and  not  of  beat- 
ing (wood-cutting  is  the  most  common  notion  in  both  lan- 
guages). The  root  is  park^  and  it  can  be  explained  only  in 
the  sense  of  cutting  or  cleaving. —  In  Semitic  the  root  pns  is 
much  more  widely  extended.  In  Heb.,  and  Aram.,  and 
Ethiopic,  its  general  secondary  sense  is  that  of  separating 
and  loosening ;  but  the  primary  physical  notion  of  cleaving 
is  apparent  also  in  Heb.  as  well  as  in  Arabic.  The  kindred 
■]"iB  has  the  prevailing  signification  of  breaking  up,  but  in 
Assyrian  it  takes  the  place  also  of  pis ,  meaning  to  separate, 
as  well  as  to  break  in  pieces.  In  all  these  dialects  the  root 
is  represented  largely  in  noun,  as  well  as  in  verb  stems.  A 
very  remarkable  coincidence  with  the  Proto-Aryan  word  is 

found  in  the  Syr.  |^Ve>j  Assyr.  pilakki,  hatchet.^     The  root 

p^B ,  found  besides  in  Arabic,  and  perhaps  in  Ethiopic,  in  the 
same  sense,  stands  for  the  primary  p^B ,  as  the  root  ^b  ,  hav- 
ing the  same  general  meaning  of  cleaving,  is  from  "ib  ,  both 
of  these  latter  being  widely  represented  throughout  the 
Semitic  family  with  various  determinatives.  It  is  not  claimed 
here  that  the  Syrian  and  Assyrian  word  for  hatchet  is  the 
same  as  the  Proto-Aryan  above  cited.  But  both  are  appar- 
ently from  the  same  root,  and  they  show  that  this  root  in 
Aryo-Semitic  expressed  the  special  sense  of  cleaving  or  hew- 
ing wood. 

15.  Proto-Aryan  kar ;  Proto-Semitic  is ,  *ip ,  to  cut,  divide. 

1  See  Friedr.  Delitzsch,  Assyr.  Studien,  i.  p.  132  f. 


132        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

The  root  kar  is  discussed  fully  by  Pott,  Wurzelworterbuch, 
ii.  p.  149  ff.  It  is  also  dealt  with  by  Fick,  i.  p.  238  f.,  and 
Curtius,  p.  147  f.  The  form  skar  appears  in  some  of  the 
dialects,  but  kar  predominates,  and  is  rightly  taken  by  Pott 
as  the  proper  root.  It  is  found  not  onlj?  in  Skr.  kar  (kr-ndmi 
and  kr^omi,^,  to  wound,  but  also  in  kar,  kar-omi,  to  make, 
(of.  Eng.  shape  and  shave,  Heb.  x-a ,  to  hew  out,  and  create). 
It  also  appears  in  Zend  kar,  to  cut,  and  kar-eta,  a  knife,  in 
Gr.  Keip<o  for  Kep-uo,  to  shear,  as  well  as  in  several  noun- 
stems.  The  Latin  has  cer-no,  to  divide,  as  well  as  cur-tus, 
short  (=  cut  off),  and  in  the  secondary  sense,  cre-o,  caer- 
imonia.  The  Goth,  hair-us,  sword,  and  the  A.  S.  hri-dder, 
sieve,  Eng.  riddle,  also  belong  here,  the  occurrence  of  which 
in  the  Teutonic  family  shows  that  the  skar  represented  in 
Eng.  shear,  scar,  and  score,  is  a  secondary  root. —  The  exist- 
ence of  the  -^D  in  this  sense  is  proved  from  the  Heb.  tiro 

Arab.  j'J',  Eth.  "H^P ,  Chald.  K-ns ,  to  pierce,  to  dig.     The 

root  -iiD  had  probably  the  same  sense  in  Heb.,  and  Arab,    "np 
again  appears  with  a  like  meaning  in  Heb.  *i!ip ,  to  dig  out ; 

Arab.  "[^ ,  to  cut  out ;  also  with  various   determinatives  in 

special  modifications  of  the  general  notion  of  cutting. 

16.  Proto-Aryan  kart ;  Proto-Semitic  o'^P,  n-ia,  to  cut  off. 

The  root  kar  (No.  15),  is  developed  into  kart  by  tlie  deter- 
minative t  (cf.  Pott,  Wurzelworterbuch,  iv.  p.  115).  It  is 
found  in  Skr.  karl,  krint-ati,  to  cut,  split ;  Lith.  kert-u,  to  hew, 
kirt-ikas,  a  hewer,  and  various  other  Slavonic  words  cited  by 
Fick  (i.  p.  46).  The  Latin  culter,  knife,  is  adjudged  to  be- 
long here  by  Pott  (ii.  p.  152)  being  for  cult-ter ;  cf.  Skr. 
kart-tri,  shears,  and  kart-ari,  hunting-knife. — The  occurrence 
of  the  root  in  Proto-Semitic  seems  clear.  The  Heb.  pna ,  to 
cut  off,  has  no  direct  representative  in  the  other  dialects ;  but 

l^-°y;  short,  ^jiSi  ^  rock,  ivAJ'-f'  an  axe,  show  that  it  once 

existed  in  Arabic;  and  ^"^j,  to  cut  up,  with  the  Amharic 

^Z^(l\j  of  the  same  meaning,  are  matched  by  the  Syr.  »-^jj. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        133 

All  of  these  cannot  have  been  developed  independently  of 
one  another,  and  have  therefore  come  from  one  primary  form 
answering  to  the  Proto-Aryan  kart. 

17.  Proto-Aryan  karp  (kalp')  ;  Proto-Semitic  5]"ip  (qbp),  to 
cut  off. 

The  root  karp  (of  which  skarp  is  a  further  development), 
has  a  manifold  representation  in  the  Aryan  tongues.  It  is  an 
expansion  of  the  root  kar  (No.  15,  cf.  Pott,  Wurzelworterbuch 
ii.  p.  155,  Etym.  Forschungen,  ii.  p.  274  f.),  with  the  deter- 
minative p,  as  kart  (No.  IG)  is  the  same  root  developed  by  t. 
It  is  found  in  Skr.  kalp,  to  cut  up  (only  quotable  in  Prakrit, 
but  proved  to  be  primitive  from  the  derivatives),  krp-dna,  a 
sword,  kalp-aka,  a  barber,  krp-dni,  shears  ;  cf.  Lith.  ker])-u, 
kirp-ti,  to  cut  off,  clip,  with  other  Slavonic  words  cited  by 
Pott,  Probably  Latin  carp-o,  to  pluck  off,  belongs  here  ;  cf. 
dis-cerpo.  And,  as  Pott  suggests,  the  Teutonic  word  half 
(A.  S.  healf,  0.  H.  German  halb^,  probably  meant  originally 
an  equal  division,  and  is  thus  naturally  to  be  connected  with 
this  root. — On  the  Semitic  side  of  the  equation  we  find  Arab. 

.  "^Iv,  Eth.  *I*A<^,  also  Syr.  ^.ali,  Chald.  q^p,  to  tear  off, 
peck  off;  cf.  Arab.  ^^Si  ^^^  ■^^^^-  ^^G^>  ^^  ^^^®  same 
meaning.  We  might  be  tempted  to  bring  in  here  cjbs,  which 
is  the  root  of  the  Heb.  rieb-'S ,  axes  of  a  certain  sort  (Ps. 
Ixxiv.  6),  a  word  to  which  there  are  similar  terms  in  Syriac 
and  Chaldee,  but  as  these  forms  may  be  onomatopoetic  they 
must  be  excluded. 

18.  Proto-Aryan  kars ;  Proto-Semitic  ynp,  U5^p,  to  cleave, 
tear  asunder,  drag  off. 

The  root  kars  has  mostly  the  sense  of  dragging  away,  a 
meaning  which  it  is  not  difficult  to  connect  with  that  of  separat- 
ing. So  the  Skr.  karsh,  karsh-ati.  means  to  drag,  but  also  to 
tear,^  and  karsh,  krsh-ati,  means  to  plough,  that  is,  to  tear  or 
divide  the  land,  to  make,  not  to  draw,^  furrows.     Hence, 

1  Cf.  the  German  zerren,  to  drag,  also  to  tear,  the  latter  being  the  primary 
sense  =  Engl.  tear.  How  this  can  indicate  violent  motion  is  shown  by  our  col- 
loquialism "  he  tore  along." 

2  Ploughing,  in  this  expression,  is  usually  explained  (see  Petersburg  and 


134        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

the  derivative  karsh-ii  means  a  furrow,  but  also  an  incision  in 
general.  The  sense  of  dragging  is  therefore  secondary,  though 
as  the  root  evidently  implied  originally  a  violent  separating, 
that  meaning  arose  very  early,  and  is  exhibited  in  those 
European  forms  which  seem  to  represent  the  Skr.  karsh. 
The  root  probably  appears  in  the  Gr.  Kop-eco,  to  sweep  out  or 
away,  if  this  is  for  Kopcr-io),  as  the  Lat.  verr-o  for  vers-o,  and 
this  for  cvers-o  would  seem  to  imply.  This  combination 
which  seems  bold,  has  the  high  authority  of  Corssen  in  its 
favor.  It  certainly  is  the  best  that  has  yet  been  attempted. 
The  root  may  be  regarded  almost  certainly  as  Proto-Aryan, 
especially  as  all  its  meanings  in  Sanskrit  appear  also  in  Zend 
with  corresponding  forms.  Perhaps  a  trace  of  the  original 
sense  of  cutting  off  remains  in  Gr.  Kopcr-oco,  to  cut  the  hair, 
and  Kopa-Tj,  the  temples  (as  being  shorn ;  but  cf.  Pott,  W. Wb. 
ii.  p.  157). —  Of  the  corresponding  Semitic  roots  the  radical 
idea  is  also  that  of  violent  separation.     So  in  Heb.  y^p ,  to 

cut  off,  also  tear  away  (Job  xxxiii.  6).     Cf.  Arab.     ^'^,  to 

cut  off,  break  off ;    ^!^- ,  a  morsel  =  Chald.  ytij?,  Syr.  ]  j_o  J 

Eth.  ^^^,  to  cut  into,  engrave  ;  also  Arab.    !^ls>  to  cut  off, 

gnaw  off ;  Eth.  ^^^ ,  to  cut  off,  tear  off,  shear.  In  these 
roots  the  fundamental  notion  of  the  Proto-Aryan  kars  is  fully 
represented.  Its  secondary  sense  of  dragging  comes  out  in 
the  Arab.    ^^3 ,  which,  like  the  Heb.  la"^;? ,  means  first  to  cut 

off,  but  also,  and  more  characteristically,  to  draw  to  one's  self, 
to  acquire.  We  also  venture  to  add  here  the  root  f'^n ,  to  cut, 
cleave,  open,  represented  in  Heb.,  Arab.,  Aram.,  and  Assyr- 
ian ;  and  especially  the  root  unn ,  which,  having  the  general 
sense  of  cutting  open,  furnished  also  the  Proto-Semitic  word 

for  ploughing,  Heb.  tt:'nn  (cf.  Arab,  ^"^i  Syr.  Aj-ik),  Eth. 
/T\^I*|.     Cf.  Assyr.  hirs-u,  a  ploughed  furrow  (Lenormant, 

Benfey's  Dictionaries)  as  the  drawing  of  furrows.  But  the  notion  of  drawing 
does  not  naturally  yield  that  of  ploughing,  which  is  expressed  by  words  for 
cutting  or  separating  in  all  the  cases  that  we  can  recall  in  both  Aryan  and 
Semitic. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        135 

op.  cit.  pp.  155,  202).  This  brings  the  Semitic  word  com- 
pletely into  accord  with  the  Aryan  kars  in  all  its  meanings. 
In  this  instance  we  do  not  hesitate  to  regard  the  roots  as  by- 
forms,  the  p  being  weakened  into  n,  a  change  of  frequent 
occurrence.  That  these  letters  are  here  of  the  same  origin 
is  as  good  as  proved  by  the  following  correspondences,  run- 
ning through  all  the  forms  we  have  cited  :  is-in  (n^n)  =  «"ip 
(r*p) ;  tpn  =  q--p  (cj^p) ;  ru^n,  pn  ='tt:^p,  pp  .  The  agree- 
ment in  meaning  between  each  of  these  pairs  is  complete. 

19.  Proto-Aryan  sak ;  Proto-Semitic  "^ly,  pttJ,  to  cut. 

The  root  sak  appears  in  Lat.  sec-o,  to  cut ;  sec-uris,  an  axe  ; 
in  sec-tor  and  seg-mentum  as  well  as  in  sic-a,  a  dagger,  and  sec- 
ula,  a  sickle ;  also  in  various  Slavonic  words  cited  by  Pick 
(i.  p.  790),  and  Pott  (iii.  p.  322).  It  is  also  the  basis  of 
many  Teutonic  words  ;  among  them,  that  from  which  the 
Eng.  see  ^  (A,  S.  se-on,  for  seh-wan)  is  formed.  With  this 
the  Teutonic  word  for  a  saw  (^sag-a)  is  allied,  but  not  homet- 
ymous.  The  root  is  not  found  in  Sanskrit  or  Zend,  but,  as 
Pick  says,  it  is  the  basis  of  the  Proto-Aryan  ska  ( >  Skr. 
kshan,  to  wound,  and  Gr.  Krec-v-o),  KTd-/j,evaL) ,  and  there  is  no 
doubt  that  it  belonged  to  the  primitive  stock. —  -]iy  is  repre- 
sented by  Heb.  r^'vU ,  thorns,  and  nsb ,  a  sharp  weapon ;  cf. 

Arab,   j^^^?  Eth.  UJVL,  a   thorn,   ^J Li. ,  armed  with  sharp 

weapons  ;  also  Ji^>  to  be  in  doubt  (i.e.  divided  in  mind),  and 

SjCi  5  weapons,     pin  appears  in  Arab.    "^ ^  to  cleave,  with 

many  derivatives ;  cf .  Syr.  •  nn  a. ,  to  cleave, >  ]rs<^ ^  ,  a  fis- 
sure. Both  -p  and  puj  are  also  found  as  secondary  roots 
with  various  determinatives. 

20.  Proto-Aryan  tak  ;  Proto-Semitic  "^n,  to  cut,  divide. 
The  root  tak  has  the  sense  of  forming,  producing  (as  in  Gr. 

riK-Tco,  €-T€K-ov,to  beget),along  with  other  meanings  easily  con- 
nected with  it  (see  Pick,  i.  p.  86  ;  Pott,  W.  Wb.,  ii.  2.  401  ff. ; 

1  For  the  development  of  meaning,  cf.  the  Lat.  rerno  and  Germ,  unterscheiden, 
.e„in,a..,o.pa..e;  He.  n,n  ,  and  A™K^;,  .„  .e,  pH„„.„„ cu.. 


136         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

Curtius,  p.  219  f.).  What  the  primary  meaning  was,  may 
perhaps  be  inferred  from  the  secondary  taks,  which  in  San- 
skrit means  to  hew  out,  to  prepare,  to  make,  and  gives  the  noun 
taksh-an,  a  carpenter,  a  wood-cutter,  taksh-ana,  an  axe.  The 
Zend  also  has  task,  to  cut  (from  taks  =  0.  Pers.  takhsh,  to 
huild),  and  tash-a,  an  axe.  From  the  same  root  comes  Gr. 
reKT-wv,  a  carpenter,  for  reKa-ajv.  Finding  that  taks  has  prop- 
erly the  sense  of  cutting,  we  may  turn  back  to  the  root  tak,  and 
we  find  that  the  Lat.  tig-num,  a  beam,  a  log,  is  not  from  taks, 
but  from  tak,  and  it  means  evidently  what  is  shaped  by 
hewing.  Further,  the  analogy  of  similar  expressions  else- 
where is  in  favor  of  this  hypothesis.  So  especially  with  n-q 
(No,  11),  which  means  (1)  to  hew  out,  (2)  to  form,  or  create, 
(3)  to  beget  (cf.  the  Aram.,  word  for  son,  "^a,  found  also 
in  Assyrian). — The  meaning  of  the  Semitic  "^n ,  appears  from 

Arab.  ^,  to  cut,  to  cut  off,  in  Heb.,  figuratively,  to  injure. 

Cf.  Syr.  ^Zj  to  cut  into,  to  injure.     Again,  the  Heb.  "^in, 

means  to  divide,  as  appears  from  X^,  the  middle,  i.e.  the 
dividing  point. 

We  have  thus  taken  up  nine  pairs  of  roots  belonging  to  the 
two  families,  having  in  common  the  primary  sejise  of  cutting 
or  dividing,  agreeing  moreover  perfectly  in  their  primary 
forms.  The  most  remarkable  set  of  correspondences  must 
be  admitted  to  be  found  in  the  forms  kar,  kart,  karp,  kars, 
with  their  Semitic  equivalents.  The  root  kar,  to  cut,  has  no 
other  secondary  forms  than  these ;  they  are  all  matched  in 
Proto-Semitic.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  some  of  these  pairs  of 
roots  agree  not  only  in  their  general  sense,  but  also  most 
strikingly  in  their  special  application. 

Words  for  Rubbing  and  Bruising. 

21.  Proto-Aryan  mar ;  Proto-Semitic  "i»,  to  rub,  to  bruise. 

For  the  fullest  discussions  of  the  root  mar,  see  M.  Miiller, 
Science  of  Language  (Am.  ed.),  ii.  p.  333  ff. ;  Pott,  W.  Wb. 
ii.  1.  p.  522  £f.  The  radical  notion  is  the  one  just  given,  as 
appears  from  a  comparison  of  the  multiudinous  forms  in 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        137 

which  it  is  represented.  In  the  European  languages  it  comes 
out  as  mal,  to  grind,  but  in  the  Skr.  mar,  mr-ndmi,  and  Gr. 
fidp-p-afj,aL,  it  means  to  fight,  i.e.  to  act  the  "  bruiser."  How 
its  use  is  shown  by  determinative  forms  we  shall  see  here- 
after. Whether  mar,  to  die,  is  the  same  root,  its  sense  being 
due  to  the  intermediary  notion  of  being  worn  down,  we  must 
leave  an  open  question.  In  any  case  that  meaning  is  secon- 
dary and  unessential. —  The  Semitic  na  means  also  to  rub. 
The  literal  sense  appears  in  Arab.    "^ ,  to  rub  (the  udder  in 

milking,  cf.  No.  23)  ;  in  the  Heb.  rrnri  and  N^a  a  figurative 
meaning  is  manifest :  to  be  refractory,  i.e.  to  rub  against. 
The  primary  notion  is  more  fully  revealed  in  the  forms  with 
a  guttural  determinative :  Heb.  n"ia ,  to  rub,  to  bruise  (cf .  nina , 

Lev.  xxi.  20),  Arab.   T '^,  to  rub  or  anoint  with  oil. 

22.  Proto- Aryan  mark ;  Proto-Semitic  p-ia ,  to  rub,  stroke. 
Cf.  Skr.  marq,  to  stroke,  touch,  lay  hold  of  ;  Lat.  mulc-eo, 

to  stroke  ;  and  perhaps  Gr.  fidpTr-ro},  to  seize  upon,  for  fxdpK- 
T6)  (so  Roth  in  Kuhn's  Zeitschrift,  xix.  p.  222  ;  cf.  Curtius, 
p.  463). — p-ia  is  represented  in  the  Heb.  pna ,  to  polish,  or 

"rub  up"  metals,  also  to  rub  off,  clean  off;  Syr.  ^^j^, 

Chald.    P"!^ .     In   Arabic   the  r  becomes  /  as  in  Latin  ;  so 

/^jU^    to  rub  out,  to  wash  off. 

23.  Proto- Aryan  marg-  (jnalg')  ;  Proto-Semitic  aia ,  aba ,  to 
rub,  to  press,  to  milk. 

The  root  marg  is  very  widely  represented.  Skr.  marj 
means  to  rub,  to  make  smoot^i  or  clean.  Zend  marez  has 
the  same  force,  but  maregh,  means  to  rove  about  (cf.  Engl, 
"knock  around").  Gr.  o-fiopj-vvfjii,  signifies  to  wipe  off; 
d-/jLop'y-6<;,  pressing  out ;  p,dp<y-o^,  roving  about,  wandering. 
In  the  European  languages  the  root  also  means  to  milk,  the  r 
being  replaced  by  I;  so  Gr.  a-fiiXy-o),  Lat.  mnlg-eo,  Eng.  milk, 
and  in  all  the  other  dialects. — All  of  these  meanings  are  illus- 
trated in  the  Semitic  s^a .  The  Heb.  5^a  means  to  rub  hard,  to 
press,  as  appears  from  ^^yis,  a  threshing-sledge  (mod.  Arab. 
mauraj ;  cf.  Lat.  tribulum  <  tero).    From  the  sense  of  press- 


138         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

ing  comes  that  of  urging  (cf.  the  usage  of  the  Lat.  urg-eo'),  or 
driving,  in  Chald.  !i"no.  The  Eth.  ^^^T,  transfers  the  pri- 
mary sense  to  that  of  rubbing  on  mortar  or  plastering  (from 
the  use  of  the  trowel)  ;  while  the  Arabic,  as  in  No.  22,  and 

in  the  European  malk,  changes  the  r  to  /,  and    Ij^    means 

to  milk.  It  is  not  here  maintained  that  the  agreement  in 
the  I  sounds,  or  in  the  special  sense  of  milking,  is  a  proof 
that  this  very  form  in  this  very  sense  was  common  to  the 
two  families.  This  would  be  absurd.  It  only  shows,  in  a 
way  that  is  now  becoming  familiar  to  us,  that  the  use  of  the 
fundamental  root  viarg-  iros,  before  the  Aryo-Semitic  schism, 
was  such  as  to  lend  itself  readily  to  this  special  application 
long  ages  afterwards. 

24.  Proto-Aryan  mard;  Proto-Semitic  ^"la ,  to  bruise,  press ; 
to  rub,  to  soften. 

For  the  development  of  meaning  in  the  root  mard,  see 
especially  M.  Miiller,  Science  of  Language,  ii.  p.  346  f  .^  The 
Skr.  mard,  mrd-nd-ti;  mrad,  mrad-ate,  mean  to  pre?is,  also  to 
rub  to  pieces.  Hence  the  adj.  mrd-u,  soft,  i,e.  impressible, 
with  which  cf.  the  Lat.  moll-is,  for  mold-vis,  and  the  Eccl. 
Slav.,  mrad-u,  tender.  The  Gr.  a-fxaXS-vvco,  means  to  soften, 
or  weaken ;  while  our  Engl,  melt  appears  in  Goth.  7nalt-an^ 
A.  S.  melt-an.  Again,  the  Skr.  mrd,  means  earth  or  soil,  as 
being  pulverized  —  a  word  which  reappears  in  Engi.  mold. 
Finally,  the  Lat.  mord-eo,  to  bite,  combines  in  its  signification 
the  two  ideas  of  pressing  and  rubbing  or  gnawing  which  are 
contained  in  the  primitive  root. — These  various  meanings 
emerge  also  in  the  Semitic  ^na.  The  Heb.  ^na,  has  the 
figurative  sense  of  being  refractory,  rebellious,  which  we  met 

with  in  No.  21.     So  the  Syr.  ^^  means  to  resist  or  struggle 

against.  The  Eth.  ^^A,^  gives  the  idea  of  assailing, 
attacking  (cf.  again  mar.  No.  21).  In  the  Arabic,  however, 
we  find  a  more  complete  agreement  with  the  Aryan  signifi- 

1  The  reader  should  be  cautioned,  however,  against  following  Prof.  Muller's 
ingenious  observations  beyond  the  forms  that  represent  mard  with  phonological 
exactness. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        139 

cations.  Besides  having  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  just  given, 
j^r^,  means  to  soften  (as  bread  or  dates  in  water),  to  press 

with  the  teeth  (used  of  children  at  the  breast),  while  jj[^ 

means  to  soften  in  general,  wherefore  we  have  Jjjg ,  soft, 

jj[^,  softness,  tenderness,  with  various  allied  derivatives, 
thus  completing  the  analogy  with  the  Aryan  forms.  With 
mrd  and  mold  may  be  compared  the  Eth.  ^^^^,  dust, 
earth,  which,  however  we  may  try  to  account  for  its  exact 
form.i  is  certainly  developed  from  the  root  ^a,  with  a  form 
almost  identical  with  the  Proto-Aryan  word. 

25.  Proto-Aryan  mars;  Proto-Semitic  ttj^a,  pa,  to  op- 
pi'Gss,  vex,  obstruct. 

The  Skr.  rtiarsh  means  (1)  to  forget,  (2)  to  endure  pa- 
tiently. The  Lith.  mirsz-tu  means  to  forget.  If  we  seek  the 
missing  link  between  these  apparently  unconnected  ideas,  it 
is  found  in  the  Goth,  marz-ian,  to  hinder,  vex.  Forgetting 
is  thus  a  mental  obstruction.^  The  other  Skr.  sense,  of  endur- 
ing, is  probably  developed  from  an  earlier  application  of  the 
verb  as  neuter  or  passive  :  (1)  to  be  vexed  or  oppressed  ; 
(2)  to  suffer  ;  (3)  to  suffer  patiently.  The  inflective  form 
favors  this  view  :  marsh,  mrsh-yati  (4.  class  ;  see  Whitney's 
Skr.  Grammar,  §§761,  762).  Cf.  the  Latin  patior  (Pick,  ii. 
p.  141),  (1)  to  be  vexed,  (2)  to  suffer,  (3)  to  suffer  patiently 
—  also  a  deponent  verb,  and  of  the  same  conjugational  class 
as  the  Skr.  word. — The  Semitic  root  has  not  the  special 
secondary  sense  of  foi-getting,  but  otherwise  the  parallel 
may  be  made  complete.  The  primary  notion  of  pressing, 
oppressing,  is  found  in  Heb.  y-na  (as  in  1  Kings  ii.  8),  Arab 

JLli >  ;llx ,  ijoli ,  ^1^  of  which  have  the  sense  of  pressing  or 

1  See  Dillmann,  Aeth.  Gramm.  p.  185;  Lexicon  Aeth.  col.  167. 

-  A  similar  explajiation  is  suggested  by  Pott  (W.  Wb.  ii.  2,  p.  447)  for  the 
Skr.  sense  of  forgetting.  If  the  word  "  vi/a-marsh-a,  a  rubbing  out,  erasure," 
cited  by  him  were  genuine,  a  solution  just  as  good  would  be  at  hand.  But  it  is 
not  found  in  the  Petersburg  Diet.  If  an  actual  word,  it  is  probably  from  the 
root  j/iarf  (No.  22),  as  a  corrupted  form. 


140         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

squeezing,  and  Assyr.  •pa  ,i  to  use  force,  marsu,  harsh,  violent. 
The  idea  of  being  oppressed  is  brought  out  in  Assyr.  murs-u, 
sickness,^  Arab.  ^T^,  to  be  weak,  sick,  conj.  v.  to  show- 
languor,  while    11^  J  a  disease  of  the  mind,   includes  such 

mental  ailments  as  languor  and  hesitation  (see  Freytag,  iv. 
p.  169),  thus  furnishing  a  sort  of  analogy  with  the  mental 
application  of  the  Skr.  marsh.  Finally,  the  sense  of  obstruct- 
ing appears  in  the  very  common  Assyrian  word  mars-u, 
obstructive,  impassable. 

Thus  in  the  two  families  we  have  a  group  of  five  pairs  of 
roots  of  identical  meanings  and  special  applications  comprised 
in  mar  ('^»)  and  its  secondaries.  Nearly  all  the  actual,  as  well 
as  possible,  manifestations  of  that  root  in  the  two  systems  will 
be  found  to  be  established  in  the  foregoing  presentation. 

Words  for  Joining. 

26.  Proto-Aryan  gam ;  Proto-Semitic  oa,  to  join,  to  bring 
together. 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  of  the  existence  of  gam 
as  a  Proto-Semitic  root.  For  a  succinct  presentation  of  the 
argument  see  Curtius  (5.  ed.)  p.  546  f.  The  words  that 
establish  it  are  Skr.  jdm-i,  related,  connected  (as  children  of 
one  family),  and  as  a  noun,  relationship;  vi-jdm-an,  coupled 
together,  as  the  arms  and  legs ;  Latin  gem-ini,  twins,  i.e. 
couples ;  Gr.  f^dfi-o'^,  marriage,  'yafju-iw,  to  marry,  (not  a  de- 
nominative, as  is  shown  by  €-<yr}/j,-a)  ;  further,  Skr.  jdm-dtar, 
one  related  by  marriage,  a  son-in-law,  a  husband,  etc.,  just 
like  Gr.  <ya/j^^p6<; ;  jdm-d,  daughter-in-law  ;  Latin  gen-er,  son- 
in-law,  is  evidently  for  gem-er,  the  ni  of  gem-ro  being  re- 
placed by  n.  perhaps  through  the  influence  of  the  following 
r,  as  Corssen  thinks.  The  only  verb-stem  in  which  the  root 
appears  is,  therefore,  the  Gr.  ya/M-eco,  unless  yi/jL-w,  to  be  full, 
is  connected  with  it,  in  the  sense  of  being  pressed  together, 
as  Fick  supposes  (ii.  p.  87).  But  the  predicative  root  which 
yields  all  these  forms  can  only  mean  to  unite.     A  root  gam, 

1  See  Lenormant,  Etude,  etc.,  already  cited,  p.  78. 

'■^  For  kindred  Assyrian  words,  see  Lenormant,  op.  cit.,  p.  82  fF. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  AYRAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.       141 

to  beget,  nasalized  like  g'an,  from  g-a  Qyi-yov-a:  ye-ja-o)';') 
does  not  exist,  and  if  it  did  it  would  not  yield  the  forms  that 
imply  coupling.  —  The  root  oa  has  a  large  representation  in 
Proto-Semitic,  both  in  primary  and  in  secondary  forms. 
First  we  have  the  simple  oa  in  Hebrew  and  Arabic.  In  the 
former  it  is  not  found  as  a  verb-stem,  but  we  find  in  Phenician 
the  noun  roa  (cited  by  Fiirst,  Worterbuch  s.v.  ns),  assembly, 
community,  while  we  have  in  Hebrew  proper  the  conjunction 
ca ,  also,  originally  a  substantive  meaning  union ;  cf.  Arab. 

C3  ^  G  S  ^^ 

^  ,  to  be  many,  to  be  heaped  together,  ^  ^ ,  an  assembly. 

In  Arabic,  however,  a   more  common  word  for   uniting  is 

V^  J  being  the  same  root  with  the  post-determinative  y . 

With  the  post-determinative  *i  we  have  *na  in  all  the  dialects 
of  the  system  in  both  verb  and  noun  stems,  meaning  to  bring 
all  together,  to  complete.  With  other  post-determinatives 
the  same  primary  sense  is  directly  or  indirectly  preserved. 

Words  for  Stretching  or  Extending. 

27.  Proto-Aryan  tan;  Proto-Semitic  in  to  stretch,  extend. 

The  Aryan  root  tan  appears  in  Skr.  tan,  tan-omi,  to  stretch, 
strain ;  Zend,  tan,  to  stretch  out,  spread  out ;  Gr.  reivco  for 
rev-io),  TC-Taivco  for  TV-Tav-toi,  to  stretch,  extend ;  Lat.  ten-do, 
to  stretch,  ten-eo,  to  hold,  i.e.  to  keep  on  the  strain  ;  tempto 
(properly  tenrto,  according  to  Corssen),  to  try,  or,  primarily, 
as  Curtius  says,  to  stretch  a  thing  till  it  fits  ;  Goth,  than-yan; 
A.  S.  then-yan,  to  extend.  It  is  also  found  in  many  noun- 
stems  in  these  and  all  the  other  Indo-European  dialects,  with 
kindred  or  derived  meanings,  in  which  the  force  of  the  pri- 
mary idea  is  variously  and  vividly  represented.  This  tan 
is  really  a  nasalized  form  of  ta,  which  appears  as  the  stem 
before  a  consonant  in  Greek  and  Sanskrit.  Thus  tan  in  Skr. 
has  the  participle  ta-ta,  to  stretch,  and  reiVw  gives  the  aor. 
i-rd-6r)v,  while  we  also  meet  with  the  form  Ta-crt<?,  a  stretch- 
ing, and  Ta-vv-fiat,  I  stretch  myself ;  cf.  the  note  in  Chap.  iv. 
on  nasal  vowels  in  connection  with  the  determinative  n.  — 
The  Semitic  "jn  shows  itself  most  simply  in  the  Heb.  15^)  to 


14'2        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

stretch,  extend,  and  its  antiquity  is  attested  by  the  nouu- 
stems  't  7?  extension,  and  T^ /)  a  shoestring,  in  Etlwopic  ; 
and  especially  by  the  word  for  large  serpent  or  sea-monster : 

Heb.  and  Chald.  rrn;  Arab.  ,j.*^*'  which  is  derived  from 

"(Sn,  just  as  the  Lat.  regiilus  is  from  rego^  to  stretch.  With 
a  predeterminative  i  the  idea  of  extension  denoted  by  the 

simple  root  is  transferred  to  time  ;  hence  the  Arab.     I^*' 

to  be  perpetual,  and  the  obsolete  Heb.  "ifi^,  which  is  to  be 
presupposed  for  the  noun  *iri''5<,  perpetuity.  With  the  pre- 
determinative 3  the  idea  of  stretching  becomes  that  of  giving, 
or  reaching  forth. ^  So  we  have  the  Heb.  in?,  to  give,  which 
appears  also  in  Chaldee  and  Samaritan,  and  of  which  the 

Syr.  \AJ  is  probably  a  corruption.  The  Assyr.  pa  is  the 
same  word  with  t  softened  to  </,  according  to  a  common 
change.  In  the  Eth.  \'\'  ^ ,  however,  the  primary  notion 
has  apparently  been  transferred  to  the  mental  sphere,  and 
the  word  means,  in  conj.  IV.  1,  to  be  busily  engaged,  assidu- 
ously occupiedj^or,  as  we  say,  to  have  the  mind  on  the  strain, 
to  be  irirtent.  The  same  root,  in,  with  a  vowel  postdeter- 
minative,  appears  in  Heb.  Hjn ,  as  well  as  in  several  of  the 
Aramaic  idioms,  with  the  proper  sense  of  rewarding.^  As 
corresponding  with  the  Aryan  ta  we  may  possibly  have  a 
relic  of  a  Semitic  xn  or  no  in  the  Arab,  reduplicated  form 

y^y^ ,  to  incline  downwards. 

28.  Proto-Aryan  not  (niC)  ;  Proto-Semitic  rs ,  isd  ,  to  stretch 
forward,  incline. 

^  This  transference  of  meaning  is  very  common  in  language.  It  is  manifest 
in  the  origin  of  the  words  offer  and  proffer,  Lat.  praebeo  (  =  prae-habeo,  to  hold 
out),  and  even  in  the  word  give  which  is  probably  identical  with  the  T^at.  habeo, 
to  hold.  So  also  in  the  Skr.  prayacchdmi,  I  offer,  give,  from  the  root  yam,  prop- 
erly to  stretch. 

2  Sec  Dillman,  Lex.  Aethiop.  col.  660,  who,  however,  with  apparent  impro- 
priety, connects  the  meaning  with  the  idea  of  giving,  and  compares  the  Lat.  ex- 
pression :  se  dfidere. 

8  Cf.  the  Lat.  dono  from  do,  or,  as  a  still  better  illustration,  the  Germ,  dar- 
'eichen,  to  reach  forth,  present. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        143 

All  Indo-European  combination  is  given  by  Fick  (i.  125). 
From  the  adducible  examples  there  would  seem  to  have  been 
not  only  the  root  nat,  but  a  degenerated  form  nit.  The  Skr. 
ndth  means  to  seek  for  help.^  Comparing  this  with  the  Goth. 
nath.,  nithan  (Teutonic  ndtha),  to  support,  help,  and  the  Lat. 
nit-or,  to  strive  after,  to  seek  or  gain  support,  it  is  evident 
that  the  primary  meaning  of  the  root  is,  to  reach  after,  or 

05  ^ 

stretch  forwards.  —  On  the  Semitic  side  the  Arab.  ^ ,  and 
with  a  vowel  determinative  \J^,  to  stretch  out,  lengthen, 
preserves  the  primary  signification  of  the  root ;  but  the  cor- 
responding Ileb.  !^»i,  while  yielding  the  same  sense,  means 
more  generally  to  stretch  or  lean  forwards,  to  incline.  Again, 
Eth.  t"^U?  with  the  post-determinative  y,  means,  primarily, 
to  extend,  stretch  out,  as  the  noun-stem  ^^  v  >  ^  ^^nt,  im- 
plies, which  is  formed  from  it  as  Lat.  teyitorium^  L.  Lat.  tenta, 
tent,  came  from  tendo.  But  ^'t'O  also  meant  to  stretch 
forward  or  incline,  for  its  current  sense  is  to  flee  or  to  be 
put  to  flight.2     The  proof  is  complete  when  we  refer  to  the 

identical  root  in  Syriac,  '?5.AJ  •  to  incline,  used  specially  of  a 

scale  of  the  balances. 

29.  Proto-Aryan  mad;  Proto-Semitic  ib,  to  extend,  to 
measure. 

The  root  ma  yields  the  common  Indo-European  words  for 
measuring.  In  its  undeveloped  form  it  is  found  in  Skr.  w<2, 
to  measure  ;  Zend  md,  to  measure,  to  produce  ;  Gr.  fii-rpov, 
a  measure  ;  Lat.  me-tior,  to  measure  ;  Eccl.  Slav,  me-ra,  a 
measure.  The  secondary  root  mad  is  also  Proto-Aryan.  It 
appears  in  Lat.  mod-us  measure,  and  mod-eror,  to  keep  in 

1  Pott's  attempt  (Wurzelworterbuch,  i.  576),  to  connect  ndtk  with  ni,  to  lead, 
fails,  because  it  begins  at  the  wrong  end  of  the  train  of  ideas.  The  Skr.  ndtha, 
means,  a  "  leader,"  only  because  it  first  meant  a  protector,  i  e.  one  who  is  sought 
for  help  or  support.     As  a  neuter  noun,  ndlha  means  help  or  support. 

*  Just  as  the  L&t.fugio  is  from  the  root  bhug,  to  incline,  bend,  which  also  yields 

our  English  how.  The  Arabic  ^\ ,  just  cited,  means  also  to  flee ;  cf  Heb. 
r.B:  ,  1  Sam.  xiv.  7. 


144         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

measure,  mod-ivs  and  Gr.  fie.h-ifivo<;,  a  bushel  measure,  and 
it  takes  the  place  of  ma  entirely  in  the  Teutonic  mat  (Goth. 
mitan,  Engl.  mete}.  In  the  figurative  sense  of  considering 
(cf.  Germ,  ermessen)  we  have  it  in  Gr.  fMi]8-ofMat,  to  think  on, 
fjueS-o/jLat,  to  care  for  ;  while  it  is  found  also  in  the  same  sense 
in  Keltic.  The  sense  of  measuring,  then,  is  the  prevailing 
notion  attaching  to  these  roots.  That  the  primary  idea  was 
that  of  extension  can,  we  think,  be  pretty  clearly  shown.  In 
the  first  place  the  idea  of  measuring  is  not  primitive  ;  it  is 
essentially  a  secondary  and  complex  notion,  implying  a  fac- 
titious comparison  with  an  accepted  standard  :  it  must  be 
expressed  by  the  new  application  of  a  previously  existing 
term.  What,  then,  is  it  to  measure  ?  It  is  just  to  take  the 
length,  or  rather  the  extent,  of  anything.  Hence,  when  we 
come  to  examine  in  various  languages  the  words  for  measur- 
ing whose  etymology  is  accessible,  we  find  that  the  radical 
notion  is  that  of  extending,  in  nearly  every  case.^  In  the 
second  place,  we  have  apparent  secondary  forms  of  the  root 
ma  which  imply  the  notion  of  extending.  There  are  in 
Indo-European  apparently  three  roots,  mak,  mag,  and  mag-h 
(see  Curtius,  5  ed.  p.  328,  No.  462),  which  had  the  sense 
referred  to.  These  have  given  rise  respectively  to  such  rep- 
resentative words  as  the  Gr.  /j,aK-p6<;,  long;  Lat.  mag^us, 
great,  and  Skr.  mah-ant,  great.  These  are  most  naturally  to 
be  connected  with  a  root  ma,  having  the  general  sense  of 
extending.^  In  the  third  place,  there  is  more  direct  evidence 
from  the  usage  of  the  root  ma  itself.  In  Zend,  it  means  to 
make,  produce,  and  a  similar  sense  is  given  by  it  in  Sanskrit, 
when  it  is  compounded  with  the  prefix  nis.  But  it  is  more 
significant  still  that  the  Proto-Aryan  word  for  mother,  matar^ 
is  from  ma,  and  as  it  obviously  means  the  producer,  it  shows 
how  very  early  this  meaning  was  attached  to  the  root.     Now, 

1  The  Arab.  Jk'is  an  exception.     Like  the  equivalent  Heb.  b"3  it  primarily 

meant  to  hold  or  contain,  and  was  thus  applied  to  dry  and  liquid  measure. 
This,  of  course,  belongs  to  a  later  order  of  things. 

2  It  is  noteworthy  that  ma  is  the  stem  of  the  Latin  comparative  md-jor,  and 
that  there  is  no  final  consonant  in  the  stem  of  the  Gaelic  m6r  and  Welsh  mawr, 
great,  which  are  undoubtedly  hometymous. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         I45 

we  cannot  very  readily  get  the  idea  of  producing  from  that 
of  measuring,  but  we  can  very  easily  associate  it,  as  well  as 
the  notion  of  measuring,  with  the  idea  of  extending  (cf.  the 
Lat.  pro-duco).  —  The  root  jtn  is   preserved    in   tlie   Arab. 

ILo  ^"<i  ,<Lo  1  *o  extend,  spread  out,  and  though  it  does  not 
appear  in  other  idioms  in  verb-stems  without  consonantal 
determinatives,  it  is  probable  that  the  Semitic  word  for  hun- 
dred (Heb.  nxa  )  is  derived  from  it.  However  this  may  be, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  this  fundamental  expression  occurs  in 
many  other  forms.  The  most  notable  is  the  root  ^12 ,  which 
appears  as  Proto-Semitic,  not  only  in  the  simple  form,  but 
also  with  various  determinatives,  as  n^ia ,  ^ia ,  ^xr  }  all  having 
the  notion  of  extending.  The  simple  root  "in  had  also,  from 
early  Semitic  times,  the  sense  of  measuring,  as  appears  from 
the  Heb.  ^^n,  to  lengthen,  to  measure,  as  compared  with  the 
Arab,  j^ ,  the  name  of  a  certain  dry  measure,  from  the  root 

jLoJ  cf.  j^jooj  of  like  meaning.  In  the  same  way,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  root  mad  yields  the  Lat.  mod-ius  and  Gr.  fieh- 
L/xva,  and  thus  the  analogy  is  completed  with  the  root  na . 

30.  Proto-Aryan  rak;  Proto-Semitic,  "p,  to  extend. 

In  the  Indo-European  sphere  the  two  roots  rak,  rag-  lie 
side  by  side  ;  each  of  them  means,  properly,  to  stretch,  ex- 
tend. Whether  the  form  rag-  has  been  weakened  from  rak, 
according  to  the  analogy  of  a  multitude  of  roots  in  Greek 
(Curtius,  p.  533  if.),  and  occasional  examples  elsewhere, 
or  whether  they  are  equally  autonomous,  we  do  not  need  to 
attempt  to  determine.  The  root  rak,  in  the  sense  of  extend- 
ing, seems  to  survive  in  the  Zend  raq-ta^^  right,  straight  (as 

^  From  this  root  comes  the  Assyr.  ma'adu,  great,  and  also,  as  Schrader  has 
suggested  (Keilinschriften  u.  d.  Alte  Test.  p.  3)  the  Heb.  "ikp  ,  much,  which 
has  nothing  to  do  with  'TIS  ,  to  be  strong. 

'^  The  9  here  corresponds  to  an  original  k,  as  in  Sanskrit,  and  not  to  g,  which 
it  represents,  in  place  of  an  intermediate  z,  only  before  m  and  n.  See  Schleicher, 
Compendium,  p.  186.  The  root  is  therefore  rak ,  and  not  rag.  Pott,  who  brings 
it  in  under  rag  (Wurzelworterbuch,  iii.  593),  admits  that  the  sibilant  looks 
suspicious.  Tick  (i.  406),  combines  with  Lat.  rec-tus  (for  reg-tus)  without 
hesitation. 


146        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

our  -word  right  is  from  the  root  rag).  It  also  appears  in  the 
Skr.  raq-7ni,  raq-and,  a  string,  a  thong,  a  measuring  line,  and 
probably  in  rdq-i,^  a  large  quantity.  A  weakened  form  of 
the  same  primitive  root  is  perhaps  traceable  in  the  Lat.  por- 
ric-i-o,  to  present,  offer  to  the  gods,  which  would  stand  to 
the  root  rak  as  por-rig-o  does  to  rag,^  which  also  has  the 
sense  of  Lat.  pro-duco.  —  The  Semitic  "^n  appears  clearly  in 
the  form  -jix,  to  extend.     This  is  represented  by  Heb.  '^t'?> 

to  prolong ;  also  to  be  long,  or  to  delay ;  Arab.  ^\ ,  to  delay, 

Syr.  ,^9],  to  be  long,  delay;  and  in  other  Aramaic  dialects. 

The  Assyr.  arik,  long,  with  various  other  derivatives,  pre- 
sents the  same  root,    "^i,  in  this  sense,  seems  also  to  have 

had  another  vowel  predeterminative ;  for  the  Arabic  i^f' , 

,  means  to  delay,  to  linger,^  while  the  same  root  in  various 
Semitic  idioms  conveys  the  kindred  notion  of  coming  behind. 
It  is  most  fully  represented  in  Assyrian,^  where  we  have 
o/rku,  arki,  arka,  behind,  arka,  arki,  after,  arkafM,  the  hinder 
part  of  anything.  The  last-named  word  is  the  exact  phonetic 
representation  of  the  Heb.  ^^T,^  which  has  the  same  mean- 
ing, and  which  also  means  the  hinder  part  of  the  body ;  of. 

Arab.  ^^ ,  ^''  ^  and  Heb.  1^: . 

81.  Proto-Aryan  rak;  Proto-Semitic  1^,  to  dispose,  arrange. 

For  the  Indo-European  root,  see  Pick  i.  188  f.,  and  cf.  Pott 
III.  216  ff.  (Nos.  1024,  1025).  It  is  allowable  to  compare 
the  Skr.  rac,  to  arrange,  compose,  set  right ;  Goth,  rak-nyan^ 

1  It  is  a  fancy  of  the  Hindu  grammarians  that  this  is  erroneously  written  for 
raid.     But  no  root  rds  or  ras  yields  the  proper  sense. 

2  Cf.  Corssen  :  Aussprache  u.  s.  w.  d.  lat.  Sprache,  i.  500  f.  He  assumes  a  root 
rik,  which  he  finds  represented  in  many  other  words.  Most  of  the  combinations 
seem  hazardous.  The  most  plausible  is  that  with  O.  High  Germ,  rih-an  (of. 
Eng.  row),  to  place  in  line. 

3  This  root  in  Arabic  also  means  to  stand  still.  For  the  sense,  may  we  not 
compare  *ias  ,  to  stand,  with  the  root  llQ  ,  already  discussed  ? 

■•  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  Assyrian  words,  see  Lenormant :  Etude  sur 
quelques  jiarties  des  syllabaires  cun^iformes  (Paris,  1876),  p.  143  ff. 

6  This  must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  Eng.  reck-on,  A.S.  rec-nan,  which 
is  from  the  root  rag,  to  extend,  direct. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        147 

to  reckon,  determine  ;  Lith.  renk-il,  to  collect.  — The  Semitic 
root,  like  the  preceding,  is  found  with  a  light  predetermina- 
tive  :  Heb.  r^s,  to  set  in  line,  arrange,  adjust;  Eth.  \JJ^^ 
and  Q^Tl ,  to  adjust,  reconcile.^ 

Words  for  Bending  or  Curving. 

32.  Proto-Aryan  kap,  kup ;  Proto-Semitic  5)3,  to  bend,  to 
curve. 

Kap  is  represented  in  the  Gr.  Kdinr-rm,  to  bend,  Kafi7r-v\o<i, 
curved,  and  probably  in  Lat.  cap-erare,  to  wrinkle.  The 
Skr.  kamp,  which  is  undoubtedly  the  same  root,  to  tremble, 
the  expression  being  suggested  by  the  curvature  of  trembling 
objects ;  cdp-a,  a  bow,  from  the  primitive  form  kap,  preserves 
the  earlier  notion.  The  same  notion  is  apparent  in  kap-and; 
Gr.  KUfiiT-T),  a  worm  (cited  by  Pick,  i.  39).  —  The  Semitic  cja 
has  a  very  wide  representation,  and  in  its  simplest  form  it 

appears  in  Heb.  Ciss.     Syr.  .  g»^j   Chald.  C)?,  to  bend,  to  be 

curved  ;  Arab.  ,_^V,  to  turn  away  or  aside  ;  while  the  Assyr. 

has  it  as  a  noun-stem  in  kap-u?  a  hollow  place.  The  ap- 
parent derivative  C)?,  the  palm,  or  hollow  hand,  is  found 
throughout  the  system.  With  closely  related  meanings  the 
root  is  also  found  with  various  determinatives  in  verb  and 
noun  stems  that  are  surely  Proto-Semitic. 

33.  Proto-Aryan  kmar ;  Proto-Semitic  "lap,  to  bend  around. 

The  researches  of  Pictet^  and  of  Pott  (W.  Wb.  L  503) 
have  made  highly  probable  the  existence  of  a  primitive  root 
kam,  with  the  sense  of  bending  (comp.  also  Pick,  i.  40).  More 
certain,  however,  is  the  occurrence  of  a  root  kmar,  with  three 

1  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  last  two  pairs  of  roots  (Nos.  30,  31)  were 
originally  the  same.  The  idea  of  arranging  is  a  secondary  one,  and,  according 
to  a  multitude  of  analogies,  it  is  usually  expressed  by  words  that  mean  extend, 
etc.,  to  put  in  line.  So  with  our  word  ar-range,  the  Lat.  or-do  (cf.  or-ior),  dis- 
poiw,  rec-tus,  our  word  right,  reck-on,  and  a  great  number  of  hometymous  words 
from  the  root  rag.  Indeed,  the  root  "^"iN  (No.  30),  has  also  the  sense  of  fitting, 
adjusting,  in  Hebrew,  Talmudic,  and  Arabic. 

2  For  examples  of  this  word,  see  Norris,  Assyrian  Dictionary,  p.  592  f. ;  cf  516. 
8  Les  origines  indo-europeennes  (2d  ed.  1877),  ii.  p.  277. 


148         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

consonants.  The  Sanskrit  has  a  root  kmar,  kmaraii,'^  to  be 
curved,  and  although  the  verl>stem  does  not  emerge  else- 
where, we  find  in  Zend  the  noun  kamar-a,  a  vault,  and  a 
girdle  ;  cf.  Gr.  Kafxdp-a,  Lat.  camer-a,  a  vault,  and  Lat.  cajn- 
ur,  bent  inwards  (used  of  horns).  It  is  possible,  as  Fick 
suggests,  that  the  same  stem  appears  in  0.  S.  hwiil  (Germ. 
himmel}  as  the  vault  of  heaven.  —  The  Semitic  root  is  devel- 
oped in  precisely  the  same  way.  Cf.  Eth.  <f><^^ ,  to  vault 
over,  to  make  round,  ^^^C  a  vault,  and  an  orb,  with 
Chald.  ^ap,  to  gird  ;  "liop,  a  girdle,  Syr.  ]l^^  ,'^ 

34.  Proto-Aryan  ank  (^ak)  ;  Proto-Semitic  ps,  to  bend, 
curve. 

The  Indo-European  has  mostly  the  nasalized  ank  in  stems 
from  this  root ;  but  ak  appears  in  some  forms,  and  according 
to  what  was  said  on  the  subject  of  nasalization  in  Indo-Euro- 
pean roots  in  Chap,  iv.,  the  primary  sound  may  be  repre- 
sented by  ak.  Cf.  Skr.  ac,  anc,  to  bend,  ak-a,  the  curved 
bosom,  and  a  kook  ;  Zend  aJc-a,  a  clasp ;  Gr.  07/C-09,  a  clasp, 
hook,  dyKHov,  the  bent  arm,  dy/c-vXof,  bent,  curved ;  Lat.  unc-us^ 
bent,  and  a  hook  ;  0.  Irish  ec-ad,  a  hook  ;  Engl,  ang-le  in  its 
two  senses.  —  The  Semitic  root  is  not  found  in  its  simplest 
representation  ;  but  appears  with  a  variety  of  determinatives, 
all  of  which  reveal  its  primary  force.  Thus  bps  (in  verb 
or  noun  stems  in  Heb.,  Chald.,  Syr.,  and  Arab.),  to  bend  or 

twist ;  Eth.  U^^^?  and  Arab,  ^y^  i  to  bend,  restrain,  shut 

up;  Syr.  >afl^)  Chald.  cps,  to  twist,  to  turn  ;  sp5,  to  bend, 

to  arch,  ypy  and  rps,  to  twist,  all  of  which  also  are  Proto- 
Semitic.  Forms  with  other  determinatives  are  found  besides 
in  the  separate  dialects.  Moreover,  the  ancient  roots  pi»  and 
np5  give  the  idea  of  restraining,  already  adduced. 

1  This  root,  though  not  quotable  in  the  literary  language,  is  attested  by  the 
Dhatupatha  ;  see  the  Petersburg  Lexicon,  s.v. 

'■^  This  root  is  not  borrowed  from  the  Greek  Kafxapa,  or  from  any  Indo-Euro- 
pean source.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  Heb.  1^3 ,  an  idol-priest, 
through  its  Syriac  equivalent,  was  derived  from  the  Persian  source  above  indi- 
cated ;  kamrd  was  the  girdle  of  the  fire-worshippers. 


relations  of  the  aryan  and  semitic  languages.      149 

Words  expressive  of  Movement. 

85.     ProtoAryan  sad;  Proto-Semitic  *is,  to  go. 

The  root  sad  has  not  a  large  extant  representation  in  the 
Indo-European ;  but  is  well  defined  and  well  established. 
Cf.  Skr.  sad,  to  go ;  Gr.  6B-6<;,  a  way,  oB-eixo,  to  walk,  etc. ; 
Eccl.  Slav,  sid,  to  go,  chod-ii  (xodu),  a  course,  c/iod-Ui,  to  go, 
proceed.  Other  combinations  made  by  Curtius  (5  ed.  p.  241, 
No.  381)  must  be  regarded  as  hazardous  ;  cf.  Pott,  iv.  712  f. 
(No.  1783).  —  The  root  ns,  in  its  simplest  representation, 

means  to  go  away,  to  go  aside  ;  ^  Arab,  j,^^ ,  to  turn  aside  ; 
cf.  Heb.  ^^,  a  side.  With  indeterminative  5,  Heb.  ^?s  and 
Arab.  Jolo  means  to  go  up  or  go  down,  but  also  to  proceed 

or  march.2  With  internal  vowel  expansion  we  have  ^^s, 
meaning  to  go  after,  to  pursue  ;  the  Proto-Semitic  word  for 
hunting,  found  in  all  the  dialects  except  the  Ethiopic.  The 
sense  of  lying  in  wait,  ascribed  by  Gesenius  to  this  root  as 
its  primary  meaning,  is  naturally  secondary.  It  seems  also 
probable  that  through  the  postdeterminative  p,  the  root  p^s, 
the  ancient  and  universal  term  for  righteousness,  meant  pri- 
marily, to  go  straight,  or  right  on. 

36.  Proto-Aryan  sar ;  Proto-Semitic  ^ii3,  to  go,  to  move 
quickly. 

The  root  sar  is  found  in  Skr.  sar,  to  go,  to  flow ;  Zend 
har,  to  go  ;  Gr.  aXk-ofxac,  to  spring,  aX-a(,<i,  springing,  etc., 
6p-fiJ],  impulse ;  Lat.  sal-io,  to  leap,  and  many  other  Indo- 
European  forms. —  nuj  is  seen  in  Arab.   "[^^  Med.  Ye,  to  go, 

to  walk,  to  journey ;  "[^j  Med.  Waw,  to  go  up,  to  leap  upon  ; 
Heb.  "ivj,  to  travel,  to  go  around  ;  Chald.  i^ir,  Syr.  ho^,  to 
leap  upon   or  forward.      These  forms  arise  from  internal 

1  That  the  verb  is  not  a  denominative  from  "l^I ,  a  side,  is  proved  from  the  fact 
that  the  latter  is  only  Hebrew,  while  the  former  is  Proto-Semitic.     The  Syr. 

^    ,  with,  among,  is,  of  course,  not  connected  with  "IS  . 

2  Cf.  the  uses  of  Latin  scando,  and  its  compounds  ;  also  the  Proto-Aryan 
skand  (Fick,  i.  232),  in  which  all  the  above  meanings  are  exemplified. 


150        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

vowel  expansion.  The  simplest  form  is  apparently  preserved 
in  Eth.  1*1^^ ,  to  leap,  to  rush  upon  (in  the  Amharic  dialect 
the  same  root  means  to  be  carried  along)  ;  while  with  the 
determinative  s  we  find  Arab.  >  to  go  swiftly  ;  Syr.  '^j.dfcr, 

to  slip  down.  The  agreement  between  the  Aryan  and  Sem- 
itic roots  in  both  general  and  special  meanings  should  be 
well  noted. 

37.  Proto-Aryan  ragh;  Proto-Semitic  a"i,  to  move  quickly. 
For  the  various  representations  of  the  root  ragh  Pick,  i. 

p.  190,  may  be  compared  with  Curtius,  p.  192  (No.  168). 
"We  shall  cite  a  few  cases  in  which  it  undoubtedly  appears  : 
Skr.  rank  (=  rah  =  ragli)  and  rangh  (==  ragli)^  to  run,  to 
hasten ;  langh^  to  spring  up  or  over ;  rangh-as,  ranh-as, 
rah-as,  swiftness,  haste ;  lagh-u  and  ragh-u,  quick,  small ; 
Gr.  i-XaX'TiJ'iy  small ;  Lat.  lev-is^  light,  for  legv-is  ;  Eccl.  Slav. 
lig^ku,  light ;  Goth,  leih-tas  =  Eng.  light;  0.  Irish,  ling-im, 
I  leap,  and  the  common  Teutonic  root  lang-an,  to  go  forward, 

hasten.  —  The  root  an  appears  in  Arab.  to  move  quickly, 

to  tremble ;  Syr.     , ,  to  long  after,  to  desire  =  Chald.  an  .^ 

With  a  postdeterminative  t,  we  have  tan  (Heb.,  Aram.,  and 
Arabic),  combining  the  notions  of  trembling  and  being  angry. 
With  postdeterminative  h,  the  root,  in  the  form  ^an,  means 
to  run,  to   go  about:    cf.  Heb.  ban,  to  move   about;    Syr. 

\-^fA.,  to  lead,  ]A1xa3'  ^  torrent;  thence  also  a  Proto- 
Semitic  word  for  foot  (found  in  Heb.,  Syr.,  Chald.,  Arabic, 
and  some  minor  dialects),  Heb.  ^5"^.^ 

38.  Proto-Aryan  di  (^da~)  ;  Proto-Semitic  xn  (in),  to  move 
swiftly,  to  fly. 

The  root  di  shows  itself  in  Skr.  di  and  di^  to  hasten,  to  fly  ; 
Gr.  hi-w,  to  flee,  to  hasten,  Bl-efjuai,  to  speed  away,  8i-v6<;,  a 

1  For  the  connection  of  ideas,  cf.  Lat.  cupio,  which  is  hometymous  with  Skr. 
klip,  to  move  quickly,  to  be  angry  ;  see  Pott,  W.Wb.  v.  91.  Our  word  to  long 
for  and  the  Germ,  er-lang-en,  are  from  the  root  under  discussion. 

2  So  our  wordybo^,  representing  the  Proto-Aryan  term,  is  from  the  root  pad, 
to  go. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.         151 

whirling,  Bc-vto,  etc.,  to  whirl ;  0.  Irish  dt-an,  swift.  That 
there  was  another,  perhaps  earlier,  form  da,  as  Fick  (iv.  106) 
suggests,  seems  probable  enough  from  the  Gr.  So-vioD,  to 
shake,  to  drive  about.  —  The  root  kt  is  seen  in  Heb.  !~i<'n ,  to 
fly  swiftly  (see  especially  Deut.  xxviii.  49 ;  Ps.  xviii.  11)  ; 

of.  Arab.  |jfj,  to  run  swiftly,  also  to  roll  about.     Hence,  or 

from  a  cognate  in ,  we  have  the  Heb.  n^n ;  Chald.  s^^'n ;  Syr. 

1A^9  ,  the  name  of  a  bird  of  prey,  so  called  from  its  swift 

flight. 

39.  Proto-Aryan  tal;  Proto-Semitic  hr\,  to  raise,  to  weigh. 

The  root  tal  has  a  very  wide  distribution.  For  a  very 
satisfactory  discussion  of  the  history  and  mode  of  its  develop- 
ment, see  Curtius,  p.  220  f.  (No.  236)  ;  cf.  Fick,  i.  94  ;  Pott, 
II.  304-314  (No.  442).  In  Greek  the  fundamental  form  has 
been  retained,  though  it  also  appears  as  tel  and  tol.  Thus 
we  have,  with  other  forms,  rX-atw,  for  raX-dw,  to  bear,  TaX<L<i, 
enduring,  wretched,  TuX-avrov,  a  balance,  weight,  reX-Xfo,  to 
rise,  and  also  to  raise  upon  (cf.  dvareWoi  and  eTrcreWo)'), 
ToX-fia,  endurance,  daring.  In  Sanskrit  the  degenerated 
form  tul  alone  appears  :  tul,  to  lift  up,  weigh,  tuld,  balance. 
In  Latin  the  ground-form  is  tol,  from  which  tul  comes  by 
weakening :  toll-o,  tul-i,  tol-erare.  In  Teutonic  the  root 
comes  out  as  tliul;  Goth,  tliul-a,  I  endure  (cf.  Germ,  dul-den; 
Scottish  thole;  Eng.  thole- pins').  In  Eccl.  Slavonic  we  find 
tuUu  a  quiver ;  and  in  Irish  tal-laim,  I  take  away.  The  oc- 
currence of  this  root  throughout  the  Indo-European  system 
is  one  of  the  strongest  evidences  of  the  existence  of  a  Proto- 
Aryan  /.  Cf.  our  remarks  on  that  point  under  the  subject 
of  comparative  phonology.  —  The  Semitic  iin  agrees  with  tal 
not  only  in  the  primary,  but  also  in  most  of  the  secondary 
meanings.  In  the  simplest  inflective  form  the  Heb.  hhr)  means 
to  raise,  also  to  heap  up;  cf.  Chald.  b-^btn,  elevated;  Assyr. 

tal-lii,  exaltation  ;  Arab.  Jla^  ,  erect.  From  this  root  we 
have  the  word  for  mound  or  heap :  Heb.  and  Chald.  ^n;  Syr. 
|3.2j  Arab.  J^  J  Assyr.  tul.    The  same  root  has  the  sense  of 


152         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

suspending/ hanging  up;  hence  in  Heb.  n'^^nbn,  the  pendu- 
lous leaves  of  the  palm.  A  like  meaning  is  found  in  nbn, 
which  is  the  same  root  with  a  post-determinative  vowel,  and 
appears  in  Heb.,  Chald.,  and  Syriac,  though  the  primary- 
sense  of  lifting  up  comes  out  also  in  Syriac.  In  Arabic  and 
Ethiopic  the  associated  idea  of  adhering  to  is  expressed  by 
this  form.2     The  vitality  of  the  root  is  further  seen  in  the 

Arab.   Ij^,  to  rise  up,  become  prominent,  ^£^5  to  ascend, 

to  rise  (used  of  the  sun  and  stars);  conj.  11.,  to  raise  up. 
The  Assyr.  Vo2^  derives  its  meaning  of  weighing  from  the 
same  root  with  predeterminative  a , 

Words  indicating  Position. 

40.  Proto-Aryan  sad;  Proto-Semitic  "no,  to  sit,  to  be  sit- 
uated. 

For  the  familiar  root  sad  cf .  the  Skr.  sad,  to  sit ;  Lat. 
sed-eo ;  Teutonic  sat  (Goth,  sit-an  ;  Engl,  sit ;  cf .  Goth, 
causative  sat-yari',  Engl,  sef),  and  corresponding  terms  in 
Slavonic  and  Celtic.  The  Gr.  e8,  for  creS,  is  transitive  ;  cf. 
eZ-cra,  for  e-aeh-aa,  I  set,  e^-ofxai,  for  aeS-iofiat,  I  sit  =  Germ. 
ich  setze  micli.  The  causative  form  sad-aya  is  also  Proto- 
Aryan,  and  a  large  number  of  primary  noun-stems  in  all  the 
dialects  preserve  the  ancient  root.  The  force  of  the  caus- 
ative verbs  throughout  shows  that  the  word  meant  first  not 
to  sit,  but  to  be  situated  or  placed.  —  The  Semitic  ^d  appears 
mostly  as  causative  or  transitive  with  the  predeterminate  "» ; 
so  Heb.  '10';,  to  place,  to  lay  a  foundation,  to  set  in  order  = 

Chald.  10': ;  Arab.  ^^  ,  with  a  specialized  meaning,  to  set  a 

pillow  ;  Assyr.  isid,^  a  foundation  ;  cf .  Heb.  lio"; ,  etc.     That 

1  So  in  Greek  raK-apos,  a  basket,  and  reA-a^wi',  a  supporting;  strap,  from  the 
root  tal.  These  as  well  as  the  words  for  weij^hing,  above  cited,  have  their  mean- 
ing from  the  sense  of  suspending. 

2  Cf.  the  Germ,  mi-hangen,  to  cling,  adhere. 

8  It  should  be  mentioned  that  in  Hebrew,  Chaldee,  and  Syriac  the  same  root 
means  to  raise,  and  to  be  heavy  ;  the  additional  meaning  in  Assyrian  well  illus- 
trates the  Greek  and  Sanskrit  usage. 

*  See  Norris,  Assyr.  Diet,  (ii.),  p.  495,  for  sufficient  examples. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        153 

the  root  ^G  was  primarily  intransitive  is  clear  from  the  Arab. 

j^^^    to  be  placed,  to  be  in  the  way,  to  obstruct ;  cf.  Heb.  ^O; 

Chald.  st^iD;  Syr.  |^^     a  block  ;  while  the  Heb.  "I'O,  an  as-^^^o 

sembly  (cf.  Lat.  consessus)  has  as  its  most  probable  etymon    "''""^ 
an  obsolete  verb  i^o  or  Tie,  meaning  to  sit.     With  a  post-    ^ 
determinative  "i  we  find  nno  (Heb.,  Chald.,  and  Syriac),  mean- 
ing to  set  in  order,  like  the  Heb.  "lO^  in  one  of  its  applica- 
tions. 

41.  Proto-Aryan  as,  ds;  Proto-Semitic  tt;x,  to  sit,  to  re- 
main. 

Cf.  No.  53.  For  discussion  of  the  root  ds  see  Pott,  "W.  Wb. 
II.  2.  299-302  (No.  683)  ;  Curtius,  p.  379  f.  (No.  568).  The 
following  forms  clearly  represent  it :  Skr.  ds^  to  sit,  dwell, 
remain  ;  Zend  a/i,  to  sit,  to  remain  ;  Gr.  ri-fMai,,  for  rja-fiat, 
I  sit.  Very  probable  derivations  are,  Lat.  d-nus,  for  as-nus, 
the  fundament,  and  Lith.  as-Id,  floor,  ground.  —  The  Semitic 
irtt  does  not  seem  to  be  retained  as  a  verb-stem,  except  in 
denominatives,  but  its  existence  in  the  sense  indicated  is 


o  i 


shown  in  many  noun-stems.  Cf.  Arab.  "  j  and  "  j  ?  a  foun- 
dation, also  anything  that  remains  or  abides  ;  ^ '  |  >  the 
foundation  of  a  house  =  Assyr.  asas-u,  uss-u,  foundation  ; 
Heb.  ^iBx .  Hence  Arab.  r^|  ^  Assyr.  asas-u,  to  lay  a  foun- 
dation. The  root  also  comes  out  in  max  with  similar  mean- 
ings in  Heb.  and  Arabic.  From  these  instances  it  is  clear 
that,  as  in  the  Proto-Aryan  ds,  the  root  ^'x  meant  originally 
to  be  placed,  to  remain. 

42.  Proto-Aryan  man;  Proto-Semitic  p,  to  stay,  to  be 
fixed. 

For  a  full  exhibition  of  the  words  that  spring  from  the 
root  vian  see  Pott,  W.  Wb.  n.  2,  118  ff.  (No.  607).  The 
discussion  of  Curtius,  p.  311  ff.  (No.  429),  is  complicated  by 
the  identification  of  this  root  with  man,  to  think.  This  com- 
bination, which  is  maintained  by  leading  Indo-European  ety- 
mologists, is  of  no  significance  for  our  present  business, 
inasmuch  as  man,  to  remain,  is  an  independent  Proto-Aryan 


154        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

root.^  We  cite  Zend  and  Old  Persian  man,  to  remain  ;  Mod. 
Persian  mdii,  to  remain,  also  abiding,  eternal ;  Gr.  fiip-o), 
1.  to  stand  fast,  to  endure ;  2.  transitively,  await,  expect ; 
fii-/j,v-(o,  to  remain,  await ;  Lat.  mati^eo,  to  remain,  also  to 
wait  for.  Such  noun-stems  as  Gr.  fiov-^  and  Lat.  man-sio 
show  well  the  inherent  notion  of  the  root.  —  Precisely  the 
same  primary  sense  appears  in  the  various  representations 
of  the  Semitic  yo .  With  the  lightest  predeterminate  N  the 
root  'i^x,  widely  represented  in  verb  and  noun  stems  in  all 
the  dialects,  means  to  be  fixed,  firm,  enduring,  and  in  caus- 
ative uses  and  forms,  to  make  firm,  establish.  The  figura- 
tive sense  of  enduring,  abiding,  comes  out  in  all  the  dialects 
as  clearly  and  fully  as  it  appears  in  the  root  man.  Thus  the 
simplest  abstract  expression  of  the  root  is  Heb.  r^ax ,  for  Pj'ax . 

Assyr.  amat-u;  Arab,   ^j^^j  >  Eth.  Ci^^'X' ,  truth,  fidelity, 

religion,  i.e.  what  is  fixed  and  abiding.  This  figurative  use 
is  almost  the  exclusive  one  in  some  of  the  dialects ;  but  the 
primary  physical  notion  is  exhibited  in  all.     With  the  pre- 

determinative  »  the  Arab.    "^[1  means  to  stand  still,  to  re- 

main  in  a  place.  This  last  form,  though  not  certainly  Proto- 
Semitic,  shows  the  presence  and  force  of  the  ancient  root, 
with  its  meaning  as  above  given. 

Words  for  Shutting  or  Enclosing. 

43.  Proto-Aryan  klu;  Proto-Semitic  x^s,  to  shut,  enclose. 

The  Indo-European  root  is  not  found  in  the  Indo-Eranian 
division,  but  it  appears  in  every  other  branch  of  the  family, 
and  must  have  a  Proto-Aryan  origin.  For  its  manifestations 
see  Pott,  W.  Wb.  i.  684  ff.  (No.  227)  ;  Curtius,  p.  149  f .  (No. 

1  The  identity  of  these  two  roots  is  nothing  more  than  a  brilliant  hypothesis. 
No  apt  analogy  for  the  etymological  association  of  the  ideas  is  at  hand.  Some- 
thing more  is  needed  than  a  mere  plausible  connection  of  the  notions  expressed. 
And  the  association  is  nothing  more  than  plausible.  The  intermediarj'  idea  is 
given  by  Pott,  for  example,  as  that  of  expecting  or  waiting  in  meditation.  But 
it  will  be  found  that  in  all  the  cases  where  the  root  shows  the  two  meanings  of 
expecting  and  remaining,  the  latter  is  primary,  the  former  secondary.  So  with 
vianere,  ^eVco,  n'l/xvu.  In  any  case  man,  to  remain,  and  man,  to  think,  should  be 
treated  as  separate  roots. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        15o 

59)  ;  Fick,  i.  541.  The  most  significant  representations  are 
found  in  Gr.  /cXt?-/?,  /cXet?,  for  /cXeT-t?,  a  key,  KXelcc,  for  /cXef- 
tct),  to  shut,  /cXot-69,  a  collar,  KXel-dpov,  a  bolt  or  bar ;  Lat. 
cldv-is,  a  key,  cldv^s,  a  nail  (as  a  fastener),  clau^do,  to  shut ; 
0.  Irish  cld-i,  nails;  Lith.  kliuv-H,  to  fasten  on,  attach. 
Whether  the  Old  High  Germ,  sliurzan,  for  skliv^z-an,  to  shut 
(whence  Germ,  schliessen,  schloss,  etc. ;  cf.  Engl,  sluice,  slat, 
slot),  belongs  here  is  doubtful ;  but  its  affinity  would  not 
prove,  as  Curtius  imagines,  that  the  root  was  primarily  sklu. 
See  our  remarks  on  the  prothetic  s  in  the  discussion  of  the 
morphology  of  Aryan  roots.  —  The  Semitic  x^s  is  represented 
by  Heb.  xbsi,  to  shut,  enclose,  »\^.y  a  prison;  Chald.  k^3; 
Syr.  \L,  to  shut,  \2^j  a  bolt;  Eth.  "HA A'  to  shut  out, 
prohibit;  Arab. '^jj^,  to  guard,  watch;  Assyr.  Kb=,ito  hold 
back,  to  refuse.  The  root  has  also  the  secondary  sense  of 
shutting  out,  separating,^  as  appears  from  the  Heb.  b':s^3, 
different  species,  with  hometymous  words  in  Ethiopic  and 
Arabic.  A  great  number  of  Semitic  forms  point  to  a  simpler 
root,  ba,  represented  in  all  the  dialects,  with  the  general 
sense  of  including,  holding,  containing.  It  should  also  be 
observed  that  the  Aryan  root  klu  has  not  the  physiognomy  of 
an  ultimate  root. 

Words  for  Guarding  against  or  Fearing. 

44.  Proto-Aryan  var ;  Proto-Semitic  "11 ,  to  guard  against, 
to  fear. 

The  root  var  may  be  traced  through  its  various  manifes- 
tations in  its  treatment  by  Pott,  W.  Wb.  11.  1.  552-597  (No. 
512)  ;  Fick,  i.  211 ;  Curtius,  p.  346  f.  (No.  501),  and  p.  550 
(No.  660).  We  shall  cite  only  a  few  of  the  many  cases  in 
which  the  root  appears,  according  to  the  judgment  of  these 
and  other  leading  etymologists.  These  instances  will  be 
found  to  be  the  most  truly  representative  :  Skr.  var,  to  cover, 
protect,  ward  off;  vdr-a,  var-utha,  defence  ;  Zend  apa-var,  to 

1  E.g.  ik-lu-u,  Inscr.  of  Khorsabad  (ed.  Oppert),  lines  28,  69,  113,  and  ik-la-a, 
lines  79,  122. 

2  Cf.  ex-cludo,  dis-cludo,  and  Sia-Khtiu. 


156         RELATIONS  OF  THE  AYRAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

ward  off,  hold  back,  var-atha,  defence  ;  Gr.  6p-o^ai,  for  Fop- 
ofMiL,  to  keep  watch,  ov-po'i,  a  sentinel,  (f)pov-pd,  for  irpo-Fop-a, 
a  guard,  o)p-a,  care,  apprehension,  cop-do),  to  see  ;  Lat.  ver-eor, 
to  fear,  ver-ecundus,  modest,  i.e.  diffident,  apprehensive  ; 
Goth,  var-ian,  to  keep  off,  var-as,  careful  ;  0.  High  Germ. 
wdr-a,  care,  regard  (cf.  Engl,  loar-y,  ware,ivard,  a-ware^. — 
The  Semitic  root  unites  in  the  most  signal  manner  the  two 
meanings  of  guarding  and  fearing,  indicated  by  the  Aryan 

var.  We  first  call  attention  to  the  Arab,  j  ,  to  repel,  hin- 
der. Comparing  this  with  the  Eth.  ^At7\,  an  apron,  from 
the  corresponding  obsolete  root  ®(^A ,  it  is  clear  that  the 
primary  meaning  was  to  keep  off,  to  guard  against.  Now 
the  same  root  in  Hebrew  is  n"i^",  meaning  to  fear,  which 
completes  the  parallel.     If  further  assurance  is  needed,  we 

may  cite  the  Arab.  cs.  >  P)5  ?  and  cn.  ,  which  is  the  same 

root  "n^  with  post-determinative  »,  and  means  to  be  afraid  of, 

to  keep  away  from,  C)*,  pious.  God-fearing  (cf.  Lat.  re-ver- 

ens).  Its  equivalent,  the  Heb.  3?j7,  means  to  tremble,  i.e.  to 
quake  with  fear  (Isa.  xv.  4).  No  two  related  words  in  dif- 
ferent branches  of  the  Indo-European  family  show  more 
striking  correspondences  in  meaning  than  do  the  root  var 

and  ^1. 

Words  for  Binding  together. 

45.  Proto-Aryan  sar ;  Proto-Semitic  ^d,  ^s,  to  bind  to- 
gether. 

For  the  root  sar  see  especially  Curtius,  p.  353  f.  (No.  518), 
and  the  references  to  Kuhn's  Zeitschrift  there  given.  We 
cite  the  following  forms :  Skr.  sar-at}  a  thread ;  Gr.  6p-fjbo<i, 
for  aop-fMO'i,  a  collar,  necklace,  6p-/j,ad6<;,  a  string,  or  chain, 
€ip-a),  to  tic,  to  bind,  eip-fio'i,  a  fastening,  etp-epo^;,  bondage  ; 
Lat.  ser-o,  to  string,  to  tie,  ser-a,  a  bolt  (fastener),  scr-ies^  a 

1  See  the  Petersburg  Dictionary,  s.v.  The  word  is  not  cited  there  from  current 
literature,  but  from  a  native  lexicon. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        157 

series,  ser-tum,  a  garland  ;  0.  Norse  s'or-vi,  a  collar ;  Lith. 
ser-is,  a  thread.  —  The  Semitic  no  has  properly  the  sense  of 
holding  together  firmly.     With  predeterminative  N  it  yields 

the  Heb.  ^ox;  Syr.  ^]]  Arab.  ';j;  Eth.  /\|*1^  and  7\W^  , 

to  bind,  with  many  hometymous  noun-stems  ;  for  the  Assyrian 
we  may  compare  esir-u,^  a  band.  With  another  predetermina- 
tive, the  Heb.  "^o^,  to  punish,  chasten,  obviously  meant  at 
first  to  bind.2  The  root  "is ,  with  a  like  primary  force,  ap- 
pears in  Heb.  "^^S;  Arab.    !•  Syr,  ,.,  Chald.  ^2,  all  mean- 

ing  to  bind  together.  The  same  root,  is,  reveals  the  same 
meaning  in  many  developed  forms  ;  the  examples  just  given 
will,  however,  suffice  for  our  purpose. 

Words  for  Pressing  and  Crushing. 

46.  Proto-Aryan  mak;  Proto-Semitic  y2,  to  press,  to  crush. 

Certain  of  the  ideas  expressed  by  this  pair  of  roots  agree 
with  some  conveyed  by  the  group  meaning  to  rub,  to  bruise 
(Nos.  21-26),  though  the  fundamental  notions  are  different. 
For  the  root  mak,  cf.  Skr.  mac,^  with  the  bye-form  mane,  to 
crush  ;  Gr.  root  fiay,  for  /xuk,  in  /jbdaaa)  (=  /xay-Lco^,  to  knead, 
aay-eiKi,  a  baker,  fxay-fia,  etc.,  dough,  bread;  Lat.  mac-er, 
lean,  meagre  (i.e.  pressed  out),  mdc-erare,  to  macerate,  mdc- 
eria,  a  clay  wall  (as  kneaded  or  pressed  together)  ;  Lith. 
mink-au,  I  knead ;  Eccl.  Slav,  mak-a,  flour.  Curtius,  in  his 
discussion  of  the  Greek  root  (p.  356:  No.  455),  cites  with 
approval  the  conjecture  that  the  Lat.  maxilla,  jawbone,  or 
crusher,  belongs  here  also.  —  The  Proto-Semitic  ya  is  shown 
in  Heb.  ?;=^,  to  sink  (to  be  pressed  down)  ;  and  while  the 
Chald.  ^=si  preserves  the  transitive  meaning  to  press  down, 
part.  T??'  humbled,  afflicted,  the  developed  form  T]xa  ex- 
hibits the  intransitive  sense,  answering  to  Heb.  t;=o.    The 

Arab,  ^tj^,  again,  has  figurative  applications:  to  diminish. 


1  The  cuneiform  sign  indicated  by  e  stands  often  for  N  ag  well  as  for  5. 

2  Cf.  the  Indo-European  dam,  to  subdue,  as  developed  from  da,  to  bind ;  Lat. 
itrinpo  in  Virgil,  Aen.  9.  294;  Germ,  hdndigen 

8  Attested  by  Hindu  lexicographers  ;  see  the  Petersburg  Dictionary. 


158         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

to  consume,  and  in  conj.  v.  to  oppress  a  debtor.  With  in- 
determinative  y  the  Heb.  "^sa  means  to  press  and  to  crush  (cf. 
1  Sam.  xxvi.  7  and  Ezek.  xxv.  3  with  Lev.  xxii.  24)  ;   and 

Arab.  ^)^  means  to  rub  and,  as  the  derivations  show,  to 

crush  small.  The  Chald.  '^'s^Q  lias  a  meaning  similar  to  that 
of  the  Hebrew  ;  and  as  the  root  ip ,  with  the  secondary  -jya , 
run  a  perfectly  parallel  course  through  Hebrew,  Aramaic, 
and  Arabic,  they  are  plainly  Proto-Semitic  in  the  sense 
indicated. 

Words  for  Carving  or  Graving. 

47.  Proto-Aryan  grap,  glup ;  Proto-Semitic  C]ba ,  to  carve, 
to  grave. 

For  these  Aryan  roots  cf.  Curtius,  p.  178,  180  (Nos.  134, 
138),  with  Pick,  i.  574.  The  root  grap  is  seen  in  the  Gr. 
jpd(p-co,  for  jpaTT-co,  to  cut  into  (as  in  Iliad  17,  599),  to 
write  ;^  A.  S.  ceorf-an;  Swed.  karf-va;  Engl,  carve.  The 
root  glup  appears  in  Gr.  7X15(^-00,  for  yXvir-co,  to  grave,  y\v(f). 
avo^,  a  graving  tool,  lyXv^-q,  carved  work,  yXutt-t?;?,  a  sculp- 
tor ;  A.  S.  cleof-an,  to  hew ;  Engl,  cleave.  The  /  in  the 
primary  Teutonic  forms  shows  that  the  final  letter  was  origi- 
nally J9.  The  A.  S.  graf-an;  Engl,  grave,  may  possibly  be 
from  the  root  grap,  with  g  exceptionally  retained  ;  but  this 
is  by  no  means  certain.  We  cannot  agree  with  Curtius  in 
comparing  the  Lat.  glub-o,  to  peel  off,  with  ry\vcf>-(o.  These 
are  probably  related,  but  not  identical.  The  use  of  grap  and 
glup,  with  their  train  of  allied  words  in  the  widely  separated 
Greek  and  Teutonic,  is  very  strong  evidence  that  they  are 
Proto-Aryan.  —  The  Semitic  q^a  is  represented  in  Chald.  ri^f , 

frequent  in  the  Targums  ;  Syr.  -aliK*  >  Eth.  1A<<  ,  to  carve, 
to  grave,  which  is  common  in  verb  and  noun  stems  relating 
to  sculpture.  The  Arab.  ^X^  means  to  cut  off,  and  es- 
pecially to  peel  off  (cf.  the  use  of  glubo  just  mentioned).    In 

*  So  terms  for  writing  are  made  generally  from  such  words  ;  cf.  Engl,  lortte, 
with  Germ,  ritzen  ;  and  the  Lat.  scribo  is  from  a  root  allied  to  grap  with  prothetic 
(  and  just  as  sculpo  is  related  to  glup. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        159 

regard  to  the  roots  here  combined  it  should  be  observed  that 
neither  of  them  is  secondary  in  its  origin  ;  the  evidence  of 
their  primary  identity  is  strengthened  from  the  consideration 
that  to  all  appearance  they  are  ultimate  roots. 

Words  for  Piercing,  Infixing. 

48.?  Proto-Aryan  smar ;  Proto-Semitic  "in^a,  to  pierce, 
infix.  • 

All  leading  etymologists  hold  to  the  originality  of  the  s  in 
the  root  smar.  For  the  forms  cf .  Pott,  W.Wb.  v.  713  ff.  (No. 
550)  ;  Pick,  l  254  ;  Curtius,  p.  330  (No.  466).  The  follow- 
ing forms  will  show  that  the  current  Indo-European  sense  of 
the  root  is  to  hold  in  mind  ;  Skr.  smar^  to  remember,  keep  in 
mind ;  Zend  mar^  of  like  meaning ;  Lat.  me-mor^  mindful, 
etc. ;  Gr.  fxip-ifiva,  anxiety,  ^ep-fxep-o<;,  memorable,  fidp-Tvp, 
a  witness,  etc.  The  idea  of  remembering  or  keeping  in  mind 
is,  of  course,  secondary.  It  remains  to  be  seen  what  the 
primary  notion  was.  This  cannot  be  learned  from  the  form 
of  the  root  smar  itself ;  but  perhaps  it  is  legitimate  to  try  to 
get  it  from  other  sources.  Let  us  look  at  the  secondary  root 
smard,  formed  through  the  determinative  d.  This  is  seen 
in  A.  S.  smeart-an,  to  feel  stinging  pain;  Engl,  smart;  cf. 
Germ,  schmerz;  Gr.  o-/xep8-d\eo';,  ofiepB-vo'i,  terrible,  fright- 
ful ;  Zend  a-hmars-ta,  for  a-smard-ta,  not  bitten  or  gnawed  ^ 
(cited  by  Pott,  W.  Wb.  v.  540).  This  last  form  is  the  key 
to  the  meaning  of  the  other  words :  smard  meant  (1)  to 
pierce,  and  (2)  to  pierce  or  sting  the  soul,  just  as  Lat.  pungo 
means  (1)  to  pierce,  and  (2)  to  vex  or  grieve.  The  primary 
smar  would  then  mean  (1)  to  pierce,  (2)  to  pierce  or  infix 
in  the  mind,  to  remember.  This  is  in  accordance  with  the 
analogy  of  many  similar  terms  in  other  languages.  Thus 
the  familiar  Semitic  root  ^Dt  meant  (1)  to  pierce,  (2)  to 
pierce  or  infix  in  the  mind,  to  remember.  The  Heb.  ^a^,  as 
we  shall  presently  show,  means  (1)  to  pierce,  (2)  to  keep 

in  mind,  to  watch.     Cf.  also  Arab.  ,  s,3^'  ^^  ^^^'  ^^  pierce, 
1  Fick  assigns  here  the  Lat.  mord-eo,  to  bite ;  but  see  No.  24. 


160         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

to  commit  to  memory;  jwj^->  to  cut,  coiij.  v.  to  keep  in 
memory.  The  root  smar^  then,  according  to  the  best  lights, 
meant  first  to  pierce. — That  ^co  and  ^n^  mean  to  pierce, 
to  infix,  is  apparent  from  the  following  examples  :  Heb.  ^ne^; 

Chald.  N^^o^?;  Arab.  .U*w^,  a  nail;  Chald.  ^ao;  Arab,  y^i 

conj.  II.,  to  fasten  with  nails.     Now  the  Heb.  ^•^tyo  means  a 

thorn,  and  Arab.  ^_^,  thorns,  especially  "  spina  Egyptiaca" ; 

Heb.  ^""o^  and  Assyr.  semir-u  also  meaning  a  diamond.  The 
Heb.  "^oia,  and  Chald.  ^^o  mean  to  keep  in  mind,  to  watch, 
i.e.  obviously,  to  pierce,  or  fix  in  the  mind.  The  analogy  is 
thus  completed  with  the  root  smar. 

Words  for  Wetting  or  Pouring  out. 

49.  Proto-Aryan  sah  {sik')  ;  Proto-Semitic  pm ,  to  moisten, 
pour  out. 

For  the  Indo-European  forms  see  Pott,  W.  Wb.  v.  331-334 
(No.  1069)  ;  Curtius,  p.  137  (No.  24  6)  ;  Fick,  i.  229.  The 
following  forms  from  siJc  are  representative  :  Skr.  sic,  to 
moisten,  sprinkle,  pour  out,  seh-a,  sec-ana,  a  sprinkling,  etc. ; 
Gr.  iK-fid'i,  moisture,  iK-fiio^;,  moist,  etc.,  also  '^X'^Pi  divine 
blood  ;  0.  High  Germ,  sih-an  (cf.  Germ,  seih-en),  to  strain, 
filter,  seich,  wine ;  Eccl.  Slav,  sic-ati,  to  make  water.  Fick 
(cf.  IV.  56}  calls  attention  to  Lith.  sunk-iu,  to  filter  ;  Eccl. 
Slav,  sok-u,  juice  ;  Lat.  sang-uis,  blood,  as  indicating  the  ex- 
istence of  an  earlier  root  sak,  from  which  sik  arose  through 

weakening.  —  For  Semitic  forms  cf .  Arab.      y."^. ,  to  moisten, 

water,  pour  out  water;  Eth.  I*|^Pj  to  water.  In  Hebrew, 
Aram.,  and  Assyrian  the  corresponding  verbs  mean  to  be 
moist,  to  drink  in,  and  in  the  causal  forms,  to  water,  give  to 
drink.  The  notion  of  drinking  is,  of  course,  secondary.  It 
is  not  found  at  all  in  Ethiopic,  and  is  subordinate  in  Arabic, 
as  it  does  not  appear  in  any  of  the  sixteen  derivative  nouns. 


relations  of  the  aryan  and  semitic  languages.      161 

Words  denoting  Cold. 

50.  Proto- Aryan  kar ;  Proto-Semitic  np,  to  be  cold,  to 
freeze. 

The  root  kar  is  established  by  Fick,  i.  57.  Cf.  Skr.  (^i-q,ir-a^ 
cold  (as  noun  and  adjective)  ;  Zend  qar-eta,  cold ;  Lith. 
szal-u^  to  freeze,  szal-nd,  hoar-frost,  also  szar-md.  The 
A.  S.  and  Icelandic  hrim  ;  Engl,  rime^  probably  contains  the 

same  root.  —  For  the  root  ^p  cf .  Arab.   ^ ,  to  be  cold  ;  Eth. 

<^^^ ,   to  be  cold ;    Syr.  jjj ,  to  become  cool  (cf .  Chald. 

"ni^nx,  to  cool  ones  self).  It  apj^ears  also  in  many  noun- 
stems  in  all  of  these  dialects,  as  well  as  in  Heb.  ^p,  cold 
(adj.),  and  -np,  cold  (noun),  etc.  It  is  not  remarkable  that 
we  should  find  an  Aryo-Semitic  word  for  cold,  when  we  find 
so  many  for  the  action  of  fire  (Nos.  1-4). 

Words  for  Thinking. 

51.  Proto-Aryan  man;  Proto-Semitic  ■)»,  to  think  (to 
measure). 

The  familiar  root  man  in  Indo-European  means,  predomi- 
nantly, to  think.  The  following  are  a  few  of  the  numerous 
forms  that  represent  it :  Skr.  man ;  Zend  man,  to  think,  sup- 
pose ;  Gr.  /jbiv-of,  spirit,  disposition,  /iatV-o),  for  fiav-tco,  to  rave, 
fjbdv-TL<i,  a  seer  ;  Lat.  men-s,  mind,  etc.,  men-tior,  to  lie  (i.e. 
to  devise)  ;  Goth,  ga-mun-an,  to  think  of  ;  A.  S.  ge-mun-an^ 
remember,  man-ian,  to  remind,  maenran,  to  wish  =  Engl. 
mean ;  Lith.  min-iU,  to  think  of ;  0.  Irish  men-me,  mind. 
The  primary  meaning  is  to  measure,  as  all  etymologists 
agree,  and  it  is  clearly  a  secondary  from  ma^  (No.  29).  In 
some  words  for  measuring,  the  root  man  actually  appears,  as 
in  Lat.  men-sus,  participle  of  me-tior,  men-sa,  a  table,  im- 
man-is,  immense.  —  For  the  sense  of  thinking  in  the  root 

"p  cf .  the  form  with  indeterminative  n  ,  Arab.   '  (_^ ,  to  care 

1  The  root  ma  also  means  to  think,  as  in  Skr.  md-ti,  thought,  Gr.  firj-Tis,  and 
in  Gr.  /xs-^to-a,  etc.,  to  wish  for  j  man  in  this  case  does  not  arise  through  the 
nasalization  of  the  vowel. 


162         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

for,  to  be  aware  of ;  conj.  ii.  and  iii.  to  consider,  cogitate. 
Turning  to  the  Proto-Semitic  form  witli  inner  vowel  expan- 
sion, we  find  the  Eth.  ^,^j  in  conj.  in.  2,  means  (1)  to  de- 
vise means,  in  general,  and  (2)  to  devise  cunningly,  fraudu- 
lently.    The  first  meaning  is,  of  course,  the  primary  one. 

The  corresponding  Arab.  ^\^,  mid.  Ye,  retains  the  second- 
ary sense  of  the  Ethiopia,  and  means,  to  use  deceit,  to  lie 
(cf.  the  use  of  Lat.  mentior^  ;  but  with  mid.  Waw  it  corres- 
ponds to  the  primary  sense  of  the  Ethiopic  and  to  the  sense 

of  '  (^,  above  cited,  meaning  to  care  for,  provide  for.     But 

the  same  root  exists  in  Heb.  njii^Dt;!,  likeness,  image,  form, 
and  r»,  a  species,  and  is  then  evidently  used  to  express  the 
idea  of  a  mental  conception  or  image  transferred  to  sensible 
objects^  (cf.  the  various  uses  of  the  Gr.  Ihea).  The  notion 
of  thinking  is  thus  shown  to  be  Proto-Semitic.  If  the  pri- 
mary notion  of  the  root  is  sought  for,  it  seems  more  than 
probable  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  those  common  Semitic 
words  from  the  root  p  which  convey  the  fundamental  idea 

of  measuring.  For  example,  the  Heb.  nan ;  Arab.  ^  means 
to  measure  out,  allot  (cf.  Germ,  ermessen).  and  the  same 
root  in  all  the  dialects  means  to  number,  while  the  Arab.  \j^ 
means  a  definite  measure  or  weight.  Derivations  and  kin- 
dred roots  illustrate  the  same  general  signification.  The 
Aryan  and  Semitic  roots  are  thus  shown  to  be  completely  in 
accord. 

Words  for  Knowing. 

52.  Proto-Aryan  vid;  Proto-Semitic  in,  to  know. 

The  root  vid  is  one  of  the  most  familiar  of  the  whole  Indo- 
European  stock.  The  citation  of  the  following  forms  will 
suffice  :  Skr.  vid^  perf.  ved-a,  I  know,  vid,  to  find  ;  Gr.  18-eiv, 
for   FiB-elu,  to  see,  ol-Sa,  for   Fol-ha,  I  know  =  Skr.  veda,, 

1  Hence,  in  Job  iv.  16,  tllilTlPl  is  expressively  employed  for  a  form  appearing 
in  visions  of  the  night.  Gesenius'  association  of  these  words  with  the  Arabic 
sense  of  deceiving,  is  as  though  one  should  derive  species  from  specious,  or  Jingo 
from  feign. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        163 

IB-ia,  a  conception,  etc. ;  Lat.  vid-ere,  to  see,  etc. ;  Goth,  vait, 
I  know  =  Skr.  ved-a ;  cf .  Engl,  tvit,  wot,  wit-ness ;  Eccl. 
Slav,  vidr-eti,  to  see,  ved-eti,  to  know  ;  Old  Prussian  vaid-imai, 
we  know.  The  idea  of  knowing  predominates  in  the  system 
as  a  whole,  but  in  some  of  the  dialects  the  notion  of  seeing 
prevails  ;  and  it  may  be  true,  as  Curtius  says  (p.  101,  Engl, 
transl.  of  4.  ed.,  p.  124),  that  the  fundamental  expression 
was  that  of  a  seeing  which  apprehended  and  discovered. 
This  fact,  however,  has  no  direct  bearing  upon  the  validity 
of  our  combination  ;  for  the  sense  of  knowing  evidently  goes 
back  to  early  Proto-Aryan  times.  —  The  Semitic  root  is  no 
less  ancient,  as  it  is  found  in  all  the  great  divisions  of  the 
family.  It  sometimes  expresses  the  idea  of  observing,  though 
the  physical  notion  of  seeing  is  not  found.     We  cite  the 

following  verbal  forms:  Ileb.  s'^^;  Chald. "  si"!"; ;  Syr. '^j.^* 
Assyr.  id-u,  to  know;  Eth.  P^U?  conj.  ii.  1,  to  make 
known,  etc.  That  the  first  radical  was  originally  i  appears 
from  the  Heb.  »'5;irn  in  the  Hithpael,  and  the  Assyrian  forms  ^ 
are  rightly  assigned  to  the  Assyr.  'ks  ,  or  original  'is  class, 
by  leading  authorities.  The  Ethiopic  P  in  the  place  of  the 
first  radical  is  probably  an  early  dialectic  variation.  That 
the  third  radical,  »,  is  merely  a  determinative  is  made  plain 
from  the  fact  that  the  fundamental  notion  is  expressed  also 
by  the  Proto-Semitic  root  n^ii.     This  in  the  causative  forms, 

Heb.  n-^in;  Syr.  ^j©];  Chald.  ^"^ix,  cf.  Arab.  ^3''  ^°^^3-  ^-^ 
means  both  to  celebrate  and  to  confess,^  i.e.  to  make  known. 

^  See  Lenormant,  Etude  sur  quelqiies  parties  des  syllabaires  cun^iformes,  p. 
171  ;  Schrader,  Keilinschriften  u.d.  alte  Test.  p.  223. 

2  These  meanings  can  be  best  explained  on  the  hypothesis  of  a  connection 
between  M^l  and  Sll .  The  common  way  of  treating  them  is  to  make  them 
causatives  of  the  homophonous  root  Jn^l ,  to  throw.  But  this  does  not  explain 
them  at  all  suitably.  Nor  is  the  attempt  more  successful  (Gesenius's  Hebrew 
Handworterbuch,  8th  ed.  by  Miihlau  and  Volck),  to  associate  5*11  with  the  Arab. 
c  (>    )  ^^  place.     The  connection  is  not  obvious  ;  and  since  the  root  in  the  sense 

of  knowing  is  absent  from  the  Arabic  only  of  all  the  dialects,  and  in  the  seitse 
of  placing  is  found  only  in  Arabic,  the  combination  shows  bad  etymologizing. 


164         RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

The  root  ^i  is  thus  shown  to  be  as  old  and  independent  as 
the  root  vid,  and  it  is  worthy  of  attention  that  the  mean- 
ings coincide  precisely.  The  application  of  both  roots  is 
almost  exclusively  to  mental,  not  to  physical  apprehension. 
They  do  not  signify  to  be  acquainted  with,  but  to  know 
within  the  strict  sphere  of  self-consciousness.  These  two 
roots  seem  thus  to  claim  a  common  origin  through  their 
individuality,  antiquity,  and  commanding  influence  in  the 
fulfilment  of  a  common  destiny. 

Words  for  Being  or  Existing. 

53.  Proto-Aryan  as;  Proto-Semitic  ttJx,  to  be,  exist. 

For  the  root  as  cf .  Skr.  as,  to  be  =  Gr.  e?  in  eV-Tt ;  Lat. 
65,  es-t;  Lith.  es-mi,  I  am  ;  Goth,  im,  is,  ist;  Engl.  is.  It  is 
generally  agreed  that  it  rests  upon  the  root  ds,  to  be  fixed, 
to  sit  (No.  41).  —  The  Semitic  root  is  represented  by  the 

Heb.  o.-;  and  iJJi< .    tt!  and  m ,  there  is  =  the  Arab.    '''^\  \  Syr. 

A^l;  Assyr.  is-u.  The  *^  in  Heb.  ^1  is  plainly  secondary, 
U55<  representing  the  fundamental  Semitic  sound,  which  is 
revealed  in  all  the  other  forms.  With  regard  to  its  origin, 
it  should  be  remarked  that  several  independent  observers 
have  already  suspected  its  affinity  with  the  root  m,  to  be 
fixed,  to  remain  (No.  41)  .^  Is  not  this  remarkable  double 
parallel  with  Proto-Aryan  forms  very  strong  evidence  of  the 
identity  of  the  two  pairs  of  roots  here  involved  ? 

I  have  thus  taken  up  the  predicative  roots  of  the  two  sys- 
tems of  speech  which  seem  to  justify  an  attempt  to  identify 
them.  Something  should  be  said  now  of  those  nominal 
forms  which  show  a  mutual  resemblance.  It  should  be  re- 
marked that,  as  a  general  thing,  such  forms  cannot  furnish 
nearly  such  strong  evidence  of  relationship  as  do  the  verbal 
roots.     The  reason  is  plain.     The  general  conceptions  con- 

2  See  what  is  said  by  Miiiilan  and  Volck  in  their  edition  (the  eighth)  of 
Gesenius'  Heb.  Handworterbuch.  Even  Gesenius,  who  wrongly  assigned  tiie 
Heb.  d|^  directly  to  a  root  TVSi"^ ,  did  not  fail  to  perceive  the  connectiou  with 
taax  ,  etc.  (Thesaurus,  p.  636). 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        165 

veyed  by  such  predicative  roots  as  we  have  been  discussing 
are  necessarily  expressed  by  a  comparatively  limited  number 
of  words  in  any  language.  If  in  a  large  number  of  these 
the  primary  forms  and  notions  correspond  to  a  certainty,  the 
proof  of  ancient  unity  is  overwhelming.  But  derivatives  are 
numerous,  and  are  based  upon  secondary  applications  of  the 
roots,  and  not  only  upon  their  radical  meaning.  The  chances 
of  coincidence  are  therefore  greater  in  this  region.  It  should 
be  noticed,  again,  that  the  chances  of  one  family  borrowing 
from  another  the  names  for  sensible  objects  are  immeasur- 
ably greater  than  the  chances  of  appropriating  signs  for  fun- 
damental and  generic  conceptions,  just  as  it  is  easier  to 
appropriate  a  formula  than  a  system  of  thought,  or  a  maxim 
than  an  idea.  Very  much  stress  should,  therefore,  not  be 
laid  upon  most  of  the  examples  of  homophonous  and  synony- 
mous words  that  might  easily  be  brought  forward.  We 
shall,  however,  discuss  two  or  three  that  seem  worthy  of 
special  consideration  from  the  character  of  the  notions  they 
express. 

Words  for  Horn. 

54.  Proto-Aryan  harna  ;  Proto-Semitic  pp,  a  horn. 

The  Indo-European  forms  are  Lat.  corn-u;  Irish,  Welsh, 
and  Cornish  corn;  Teutonic  horrira  (Goth,  haurn;  Engl.,  etc. 
horn).  The  Greek  may  possibly  have  had  the  same  word ; 
see  Curtius,  p.  147  (No.  50).  In  Skr.  it  is  probably  repre- 
sented in  qrn-g-a,  horn.  There  is  another  Proto-Aryan  word 
for  horn,  kar-va  (Fick,  i.  58),  which  seems  connected  with 
words  for  head,  such  as  Skr.  <^ir-as ;  Gr.  Kcip-a,  etc. ;  but  no 
satisfactory  root  has  been  found.  —  For  Semitic  forms  cf. 

Heb.  T^I5;  Chald.  w-jE;  Syr.    \1^]  Arab.     °!^;  Eth.  ^Ci] 

Assyr.  karn-u.  No  plausible  roots  can  be  found  for  these 
forms.  If  karn-a  and  T}^.  are  not  the  same,  the  identity  of 
the  forms  might  be  accounted  for  either  on  the  assumption 
that  the  two  were  developed  quite  separately  from  distinct 
roots,  or  on  the  supposition  that  in  very  early  times  one 
family  borrowed  the  term  from  the  other.     Considering  the 


166        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

apparent  priority  of  Proto-Aryan  related  words  it  would  seem 
as  if,  on  the  latter  theory,  the  Semites  must  have  borrowed 
from  the  Aryans.^  Neither  of  these  hypotheses  seems  prob- 
able, but  of  the  two  the  second  is  the  less  improbable. 

55.  Proto-Aryan  a^ra ;  Proto-Semitic  "i5x ,  a  field. 

For  agra  cf .  Skr.  ajra^  a  plain,  open  country  ;  Gr.  aypo-^ ; 
Lat.  ag-er ;  Teutonic  akra  A.  S.  acer ;  Engl,  acre,  cf .  Germ. 
acker) ^  tilled  land.  The  Gr.  adj.  a<^p-Lo<i  agrees  with  the 
identical  Skr.  ajr-ya  in  its  sense  of  belonging  to  the  country, 
rustic,  wild.  It  is  a  plausible,  though  not  certain,  conjecture 
of  Kulin  (Zeitschrift  iii.  33-4),  who  is  followed  by  Pictet 
(Origines  indo-europ^ennes,  2.  ed.,  ii.  108),  that  the  word 
means  properly  pasture  ground,  from  ag",  to  drive  (Lat.  ag-o; 
Gr.  a7-«w,  etc.),  or  the  place  to  which  flocks  are  driven.^  But, 
as  Pictet  remarks,  the  use  of  the  Latin  and  German  words 
shows  that  it  was  very  early  employed  to  denote  cultivated 
land.  —  The  Semitic  term  is  found  in  Assyr.  agar,  a  field,^ 
in  Eth.  LnC>  (X)  cultivated,  inhabited  land,  a  region,  (2)  a 
village,  (3)  a  town  or  city.*  In  the  Himyaritic  dialect  of 
Arabic  1^^  means  a  district,  a  town.     The  Ethiopic  form 

appears  in  Amharic  as  AHC'  ^^^  ^^is  is  probably  a  degen- 
eration.^ These  forms  are  not  susceptible  of  explanation 
from  any  Semitic  source.     The  same  alternatives  are  pre- 

1  Prof.  Sayce  says,  in  arguing  against  Aryo-Semitic  relationship  (Assyrian 
Grammar  for  comparative  purposes,  p.  14) :  "  Words  like  "J'^J?  compared  with 
Ktp-as  are  borrowed."  This  implies  the  belief  that  such  resemblances  are  not 
due  to  mere  chance  or  "  onomatopoeia."  If  they  are  not  borrowed,  therefore, 
they  must  point  to  a  primary  identity.  A  fortiori,  then,  the  conceptual  roots 
compared  above,  which  cannot  have  been  borrowed,  point  to  an  ancient  oneness 
of  origin.     But  who  would  compare  directly  yy^  with  the  simpler  Ktp-as  ? 

2  Cf.  Heb.  "laip  ,  wilderness,  from  "21,  to  drive,  and  the  hometymous  Syriac 
and  Ethiopic  words  (see  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  p.  318). 

^  For  examples  of  this  word,  see  Norris,  Assyr.  Diet.  i.  p.  15. 

*  See  Dillmann,  Lexicon,  col.  20. 

*  Ewald  (Ausfiirhliches  hebr.  Lehrbuch,  8th  ed.  p.  402),  who  is  followed  by 
Dillmann  (l.c.),combines  these  words  with  Heb.  "iSX,  a  tiller,  husbandman,  and 
its  hometyma  in  Syriac  and  Arabic,  at  the  same  time  connecting  all  of  them 
with  Lat.  ager,  etc.  But  "ISX  is  probably  from  "iSfit,  to  dig,  found  in  conj.  v.  in 
Arabic. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        167 

sented  as  in  No.  54.  In  the  present  case  the  chances  of  the 
words  being  borrowed  seem  very  slight,  and  the  chances  of 
fortuitous  coincidence  no  stronger. 

Words  for  Wine. 

56.  ?  Proto-Aryan  vain;  Proto-Semitic  T'l,  wine. 

Leading  etymologists  are  at  variance  upon  all  possible 
questions  connected  with  this  most  common  Indo-European 
word  for  wine.  The  ascertainable  forms  are  Gr.  olv-o^ ;  Lat. 
vifirvm^  anciently  vain-om;  Goth,  vein;  Armenian  g-in^i,  hr 
gwin-i  (=  Georgian  g-win-o^,  for  win-i.  Similar  words  in 
the  Keltic  seem  to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  Latin.  For 
a  full  discussion  of  the  possible  origin,  as  well  as  the  history, 
of  these  words  the  reader  is  referred  to  Pictet.^  It  is  difficult 
to  find  a  suitable  etymology  in  the  Indo-European  family, 
though   several   notable  attempts   have   been   made.  —  The 

g  0  ^ 

Semitic  forms  are  Heb.  r!r ,  for  T! ,  wine  ;  Arab.       .      dark- 

colored  grapes  ;  Eth.  Q^  7  ?  wine  and  a  vineyard.  No  satis- 
factory etymon  has  been  found  for  these  words.  It  should 
be  remarked  that  some  eminent  Indo-European  etymologists, 
after  Friedrich  Miiller,  hold  to  the  Semitic  origin  of  the  non- 
Semitic  forms.  It  is  probable  that  both  the  primitive  Sem- 
ites and  primitive  Aryans  cultivated  or  were  acquainted  with 
the  grape-vine.  The  evidence  for  the  theory  of  the  ancient 
identity  of  the  terms  involved  is  of  the  same  general  charac- 
ter as  that  adducible  for  Nos.  54  and  55,  though  borrowing 
on  one  side  or  other  is  perhaps  more  probable  in  the  present 
instance. 

Although  many  other  cases  more  or  less  plausible  could  be 
cited,  these  are  the  only  nouns  which  seem  worthy  of  serious 
discussion  in  a  treatise  like  the  present.  I  tliink  they  are 
worthy  of  attention  from  impartial  students ;  the  agreement 
between  the  first  two  especially  seems  hard  to  account  for  on 
any  other  theory  than  that  of  oneness  in  origin. 

Another  class  of  words  should  be  mentioned,  though  not 

1  Op.  cit.  ii.  p.  311  ff. ;  cf.  Hintner  in  Fick's  Vergl.  Worterbucb,  ii.  795. 


168        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 


discussed.  These  are  pronominal  and  demonstrative  roots 
which  are  surprisingly  alike  in  the  two  systems.  But  for 
two  reasons  the  treatment  of  them  here  would  be  unprofitable : 
(1)  In  most  cases  only  a  single  consonant  is  found  in  each 
one  of  a  pair  of  similar  roots,  and  the  identification  is  not 
so  conclusive  as  when  two  or  three  consonants  are  the  same. 
At  all  events,  such  combinations  would  meet  with  that  objec- 
tion. (2)  Such  roots  are  found  to  be  (though  in  less 
measure)  alike  in  most  of  the  languages  of  the  world ;  and 
it  is  easy  to  put  aside  all  these  resemblances  on  the  assump- 
tion that  demonstrative  roots,  being  interjectional  in  their 
character,  are  apt  to  be  alike  everywhere,  since  men,  in  a 
state  of  nature,  are  held  to  express  similar  feelings  by  similar 
sounds. 

The  following  table  will  exhibit  in  one  view  the  comparable 
forms  which  have  just  been  expounded.  Some  of  the  forms 
have  a  twofold  representation  which  is  not  exhibited  here  in 
every  case. 


] 

Proto- 
Aryan. 

Proto- 
Semitic. 

Proto. 
Aryan. 

Prolo- 
Semitic. 

1. 

ku 

V^ 

21. 

mar 

ION 

2. 
3. 

4. 

had 
kar 
?  us 

>  to  burn. 

22. 

23. 
24. 

mark 
marg 
mard 

pla 

to  rub,  or 
bruise. 

5. 

hha 

na  > 

25. 

mars 

u:-i?3  ^ 

6. 

hhar 

■nn 

26. 

gam 

D5 

to  unite. 

7. 

8. 

bhark 
Iharg 

>  to  shine. 

27. 

28. 

tan 
nat 

to  stretch, 

9. 

hhas 

«:a 

29. 

mad 

•no    1 

extend. 

10. 

ark 

pn  J 

30. 

rak 

tJ 

11. 

hhar 

^n  " 

31. 

rak 

T 

to  arrange. 

12. 

bhid 

na 

32. 

kap 

^=^ 

13. 

pat 

ns 

33. 

kmar 

i»P  ] 

>  to  bend. 

14. 

park 

p^s 

34. 

ak 

ps)  J 

15. 

kar 

">S 

to  cut  or 

35. 

sad 

IS  ^ 

16. 

kart 

niD 

^    separate. 

36. 

sar 

^TT  ^ 

to  go. 

17. 

karp 

Clip 

37. 

ragh 

an 

to  move 

18. 

kars 

\anp 

quickly. 

19. 

sak 

1123 

38. 

di 

nn 

to  fly. 

20. 

tak 

-P  ) 

RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 


169 


Proto- 

Proto- 

Proto- 

Proto- 

Aryan. 

Semltic. 

Aryan. 

Semitic. 

39. 

tal 

bn 

to   raise, 

48. 

?  smar 

■nno 

to  pierce. 

weigh. 

49. 

sih 

pifl 

to  moisten. 

40. 

sad 

^t3  > 

50. 

kar 

^P 

to  be  cold. 

41. 

as 

^St  J 

to  sit. 

51. 

man 

y^ 

to  think. 

42. 

man 

p 

to  be  fixed. 

52. 

vid 

^1 

to  know. 

43. 

klu 

K^3 

to  shut. 

53. 

as 

U3X 

to  be. 

44. 

var 

*I1 

to  keep  off. 

45. 

sar 

^0 

to  bind. 

54. 

harna 

rp 

horn. 

46. 

mah 

T 

to  press. 

55. 

agra 

lax 

field. 

47. 

grap 

56. 

?  vain 

ri 

wine. 

glup 

to  carve. 

With  regard  to  these  forms,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
ideas  they  express,  it  is  necessary  to  make  some  closing 
remarks : 

(1)  It  should  be  observed  that  no  form  has  been  admitted 
against  which  the  objection  might  fairly  be  made  that  it  is 
onomatopoetic  in  its  origin.  fThe  list  might  have  been 
largely  increased  if  such  terms  had  been  included.^  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  impossible,  in  the  case  of  most  of  the  terms 
compared,  to  see  how  onomatopoeia  could  have  had  to  do 
with  their  origin.  The  only  ones  in  which  this  might  be 
suspected  are  those  which  express  the  ideas  of  cutting  or 
separating  and  rubbing  or  bruising.  But  these  notions  might 
be  expressed  in  a  hundred  different  ways ;  and  here  the 
coincidences  are  so  numerous  and  striking,  in  both  primary 
and  secondary  forms,  that  we  must,  in  reason,  either  maintain 
that  the  onomatopoeia  acted  in  primitive  Aryo-Semitic  speech, 
or  reject  that  theory  altogether  for  those  classes  of  roots. 

(2)  The  close  phonetic  correspondence  between  the  forms 
compared  should  be  well  considered.  If  it  is  admitted,  as 
I  think  it  will  be,  that  in  these  discussions  there  has  been 
no  straining  after  an  imaginary  identity  of  primary  meaning 

^  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  ideas  which  are  usually  held  to  be  expressed 
most  frequently  by  onomatopoeia  are  rarely  conveyed  by  similar  terms  in  the  two 
systems  of  speech.  For  example,  no  two  terms  for  breathing  are  alike,  and  only 
one  pair  of  words  for  calling  resemble  one  another.  The  onomatopoetic  theory 
is  a  very  easy  one  to  employ,  but  it  is  apt  to  be  overworked. 


170        RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES. 

in  the  roots  and  no  false  phonologizing  in  the  harmonizing  of 
the  forms,  the  results  are  well  worth  serious  attention  from 
this  standpoint.  The  main  fact  in  the  question  is  simply 
this :  leaving  out  the  cases  in  which  an  interrogative  mark 
has  been  used,  we  have  over  fifty  pairs  of  roots  which  agree 
exactly  in  their  primary  notions  and  ultimate  forms.  The 
value  of  this  fact,  as  bearing  upon  the  issue  involved,  may 
be  estimated  from  the  attempt  to  conceive  what  the  chances 
would  be  against  such  an  agreement,  if  the  two  linguistic 
systems  did  not  spring  from  a  common  source.  That  two 
peoples,  not  having  a  common  origin  or  a  common  early 
history,  should  have  separately  framed  a  primitive  speech 
from  precisely  the  same  elements  would  seem  to  be  a  phono- 
logical and  psychological  miracle  after  which  such  difficulties 
as  are  presented  by  the  confusion  of  Babel  would  become 
problems  only  fit  for  the  kindergarten.  The  chances  would 
have  been  just  as  good  for  a  merely  partial  agreement  in  any 
one  of  an  infinite  variety  or  ways.  In  bi-consonantal  forms 
the  first  radical  and  the  second  in  each  pair  might  have  been 
the  same  and  the  other  two  have  differed  from  one  another 
by  the  whole  range  of  phonetic  expression.  Or  in  the  dis- 
similar letters  the  divergence  might  have  been  slight,  involv- 
ing only  cases  of  possible  sound-shifting.^  Of  the  tri-conso- 
nantal  roots,  of  which  a  goodly  number  have  been  cited,  a 
much  more  various  and  bewildering  series  of  combinations 
than  even  these  might  have  been  presented,  if  the  theory  of 
a  chance  coincidence  were  valid.  And  the  proved  conditions 
of  the  question  must  shut  us  up  to  that  theory  of  a  purely 
fortuitous  resemblance,  unless  we  assume  that  the  two  sys- 
tems were  originally  one. 

(3)  The   ideas  which  are  found  to  be  expressed  by  the 

1  In  a  few  cases,  but  only  in  a  very  few,  there  are  bye-forms  in  one  family  or 
the  other,  which  differ  from  the  forms  above  compared,  by  merely  this  slight 
measure.  The  Proto-Aryan  root  rag,  to  extend,  along  with  the  form  rak,  has 
been  already  alluded  to  (No.  30).  In  Proto-Scmitic,  the  only  ones  are  "iB  and 
na,  to  separate,  along  with  "13 ,  *ia,  and  nB  (Nos.  11, 12, 13) ;  titt,  to  extend, 
along  with  'ra  (No.  29) ;  ^*1,  to  raise,  along  with  bpi  (No.  39),  and  perhaps 
3S ,  to  be  round,  along  with  Cja ,  to  bend  (No.  32). 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARYAN  AND  SEMITIC  LANGUAGES.        171 

same  forms  in  the  two  systems  are  just  those  which  we  should 
naturally  expect  to  have  been  employed  by  a  primitive  people. 
The  notions  are  simple  and  primary.  The  action  of  the  forces 
of  nature ;  the  most  spontaneous  works  and  ways  of  men 
and  animals ;  the  efforts  and  movements  required  in  the 
most  essential  acts  and  arts  of  life,  are  what  we  find  repre- 
sented in  this  brief,  but  rich  vocabulary.  There  are  only 
three  ideas  expressed  here  which  do  not  relate  to  the  world 
of  sense  ;  but  these  are  the  most  essential  of  all  metaphysical 
conceptions :  to  think,  to  know,  to  be.  Only  one  term  is 
absent  which  we  might  seem  to  have  a  right  to  expect :  there 
is  no  word  in  our  list  relating  to  human  speech.  But  even 
this  accords  with  what  our  observation  of  language  would 
lead  us  to  look  for.  Words  for  speaking  are  notoriously 
different,  for  example,  in  the  different  branches  of  the  Indo- 
European  family.  They  are  mostly  secondary  and  originally 
figurative.^  The  same  remark  holds  equally  good  of  such 
terms  within  the  Semitic  family.^ 

From  all  that  has  been  said  it  seems  to  be  a  just  and  nec- 
essary conclusion  that  the  primitive  Aryans  and  primitive 
Semites  possessed  in  common  a  good  working  vocabulary. 

1  Proto-Aryan  words  for  speaking  are  but  few,  and  most  of  them  are  but 
sparsely  represented.  Only  one,  the  root  vak  has  been  at  all  persistent.  Pictet 
has  no  treatment  of  this  subject  in  his  "  Origines  indo-europeennes." 

2  In  fact,  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  Proto-Semitic  word  for  speaking  has 
Borvived. 


Il^DEXES. 


[Compare  the  Table  of  Contents  and  the  List  of  Comparable  Roots,  pp.  168, 169.    The 
large  figures  refer  to  the  special  comparisons]. 


I.    PROTO-ARYAN. 


PAOB 

FAOI 

'ak  (*ank)y  to  bend,  curve, 

148 

k{,  to- lie, 

114 

'agra,  field, 

166 

ku  (kav),  to  bum, 

123 

'agh  {'angh),  to  press, 

84 

kvid,  to  be  white. 

123 

'ad,  to  eat, 

115 

'ark  (rak),  to  shine. 

127 

ga,  to  beget. 

86 

'arg  (rag),  to  shine. 

83,  87,  127 

ga  (gam),  to  go. 

87 

'arbh,  to  obtain. 

83 

gan,  to  know. 

85 

'a^,  to  throw, 

119 

gan,  to  beget. 

86 

'as  (as),  to  sit,  remain, 

153 

gam,  to  unite. 

140 

'as,  to  be. 

164 

gna,  to  know, 

85 

grap,  to  carve,  grave, 

158 

't,  to  go, 

114 

grup,  to  curve, 

158 

'is,  to  throw. 

119 

ghar,  to  seize, 

87 

ug  (vag),  to  grow, 

87 

gharbh,  to  seize, 

87 

us  (vas),  to  bum, 

82,124 

tak,  to  cut. 

135 

kad  (kand),  to  bum, 

123 

taks,  to  hew, 

136 

kap,  to  bend,  curve. 

147 

tan  (ta),  to  stretch. 

83,  86,  89, 141 

kar,  to  make. 

86 

tar,  to  cross  over, 

87 

kar,  to  divide, 

86,131 

tal,  to  raise,  weigh, 

151 

kart,  to  cleave. 

86,  115,132 

karp  (kalp),  to  procure. 

86 

da,  to  give. 

114 

karp,  to  cut  off. 

133 

da,  to  bind. 

87,88 

kars,  to  tear  apart, 

133 

da,  to  divide. 

82,  85,  87 

ku,  to  conceal. 

86 

dak,  to  bite. 

85 

kudh,  to  conceal, 

86 

rfa^,  to  show, 

82 

kmar,  to  bend. 

147 

dap,  to  divide, 

86 

^/u,  to  shut. 

115,164 

dam,  to  bind,  tame, 

87,88 

rfar,  to  see. 

85 

kar  (kal),  to  heat,  cook, 

124 

dar,  to  burst, 

87 

Icama,  horn. 

165 

dark,  to  see. 

85 

^v,  to  bum. 

123 

e?i,  to  divide. 

82 

172 

INDEX  I. 

173 

di,  to  hasten, 

82, 150 

mad,  to  measure. 

86, 143 

dt,  to  shine, 

82,  119 

man,  to  measure,  think, 

86 

88,  161 

dik,  to  show, 

82 

man,  to  remain,  be  fixed. 

153 

div,  to  shine. 

83,  119 

mand,  to  decorate. 

119 

du,  to  burn. 

83,  119 

mar,  to  rub,  crush,           8S 

,86 

,  90, 136 

dm  (dram),  to  run. 

87,  115 

mark,  to  touch,  stroke. 

85 

,  90, 137 

marg,  to  stroke,  wipe. 

85 

,  90, 137 

dhar,  to  hold  firm. 

87 

mard,  to  crush,                86, 

90, 

115,138 

dharg,  to  drag. 

86 

mardh,  to  relax. 

90 

dhars,  to  be  bold, 

87 

mars,  to  oppress,  obstruct, 

139 

dlii,  to  see. 

85 

mud,  to  be  lively. 

83, 

119,  120 

rf^^a,  to  see. 

85 

mund,  to  decorate, 
mna,  to  remember. 

119 

88 

nat  {nit),  to  stretch,  incline,             142 

nu,  to  float. 

83,  88 

yag,  to  worship, 
yu,  to  join. 

82 
82,85 

pa,  to  drink. 

82,  119 

yiig,  to  join. 

85 

joa,  to  protect. 

86 

pa,  to  obtain, 

86 

ra  (ram),  to  enjoy. 

87 

paf,  to  rule, 

86 

rak,  to  shine. 

127 

pat,  to  attain. 

86 

rak,  to  dispose,  arrange. 

146 

pat,  to  separate,  open, 

130 

rak,  to  extend. 

145 

/jar^-,  to  cleave. 

131 

rag,  to  color, 

83 

,  87, 127 

pi,  to  drink. 

82,  119 

rag,  to  shine, 

127 

pi-ak,  to  ask. 

115 

ragk,  to  move  quickly. 

150 

pra^,  to  spread. 

115 

ri,  to  anoint. 

86 

pri,  to  love. 

82,  115 

rip,  to  anoint. 

86 

pru  iplu),  to  swim. 

115 

ru  (tu),  to  separate. 

82 

6Aa,  to  shine. 

85,  87,  92, 125 

vain  (?)  wine, 

167 

bhag,  to  divide,  share. 

83, 129 

vaks,  to  grow. 

87 

bhad,  to  cleave. 

119 

vag  (ug),  to  increase. 

87 

6Aar,  to  divide. 

92,  129 

var,  to  guard  against. 

155 

bhar,  to  bear. 

82 

vas  (us),  to  bum. 

82 

6Aar,  to  shine, 

85,  92, 125 

vid,  to  know. 

82, 162 

bJiai-k,  to  shine. 

85, 126 

hharg,  to  shine,         85, 

87,92,  115,126 

sa,  to  sit. 

86 

Mar^,  to  break, 

92 

sak,  to  cut. 

135 

bhas,  to  shine. 

87, 127 

sak,  to  moisten. 

160 

bhid,  to  split, 

119,129 

sad,  to  sit. 

86, 152 

fcAu,  to  be, 

82 

sad,  to  go. 

149 

bhug,  to  share,  enjoy. 

83,119 

sar,  to  bind, 
sar,  to  go. 

156 

86, 149 

ma,  to  diminish. 

82 

sarp,  to  creep. 

86 

ma,  to  measure. 

86,143,161 

si,  to  bind, 

119,  120 

mak,  to  press. 

157 

sik,  to  moisten,  pour  out. 

160 

maA:,  to  extend. 

144 

siv,  to  sew. 

83 

mag,  to  extend, 

144 

su,  to  sew. 

83, 

119,  120 

magh,  to  extend. 

144 

ska,  to  cut. 

135 

J7KK?,  to  be  excited. 

83,  119,  120 

ska,  to  cover. 

119 

174 

INDEX  n. 

skad,  to  split, 

119 

star,  to  place  firmly, 

87 

slcar,  to  divide, 

86 

snu,  to  float. 

83,88 

skid,  to  split, 

119 

spak,  to  see, 

82 

sku,  to  conceal, 

86,  119 

spargh,  to  strive  after. 

115 

sta,  to  stand, 

87 

smar  (?)  to  pierce,  infix, 

159 

Stan,  to  sound, 

83,89 

smard  to  gnaw  at. 

115 

stabh,  to  support, 

87 

svad,  to  taste. 

88 

n.    PROTO-SEMITIC. 


"lax  '-b-d,  to  be  separated,  to  be 

lost,  99,  115 

lax  '-g-d,  to  bind,  109 

■lax  'agar-u,  a  field,  166 

b'X  '-(«')-/,  to  be  strong,  115 

C)3X  '-k-p,  to  bend,  99 

bx  '?'/-«,  God,  107 

pibx  '«M-M,  God,  107 

•jTSX  '-m-n,  to  remain,  be  firm,  100,  154 

vjOX  '-s'-p,  to  accumulate,  99 

*iOfi<  '-^-r,  to  bind,  99,  157 

■^■iX  '-r-^,  to  stretch  out,  101, 146 

\aN  's,  to  be  placed,  remain,  153 

;0K  '-S,  to  be,  164 

^UX  'is-u,  fire,  124 

^IIJK  's-r,  to  go  right,  100 

^St3  b-'-r,  to  dig,  102, 129 

33  6<}A-M,  agate,  114 

13  6-£?,  to  cut  off,      99,105,115,130 

■nna  h-h-r,  to  shine,  125 

Kin  b-[w)-',  to  go  in,  114,  115 

■j'la  6-(m>)-s,  to  be  white,  127 

1  3  b-(w)-r,  to  explore,  129 

i)3  W,  to  be  confused,  107 

ab3  b-l-g,  to  be  brigkt,  126 

0^3  W-^,  to  be  abashed,  107 

nrn  6-'-«?,  to  be  separated,       105,  130 

1S3  t-'-»",  to  cut  off,  consume,      '  129 

-I3  b-r,  to  cut,  divide,  99,  102,  105, 

108,  129 

it^3  li-r-,  to  hew  out,  create,  106,  129 

tn3  b-r-z,  to  pierce,  108,  129 

^t"i3  (^t'lB)  barzilru  (parzil-u),  iron, 

108,  116,  129 
n"i3  If-r-h,  to  pass  through,  108,  129 
1^3  l>-r-i/,  to  cut,  129 


I  Tl3  b-r-k,  to  kneel,  bless,  115 

pia  b-r-k,  to  lighten,  126 

ima  b-s-l,  to  cook,  127 

"IU32  6-s-r,  to  be  joyful,  127 

n3  b-t,  to  separate,  130 

135  ^'-ft-n,  to  be  curved  (?),  109 

lit  g-d,  to  cut,  110 
h''},  g-d-l,  to  twist  together,  make 

great,  109 

yiii  g-d-',  to  hew  off,  110 
TJ  g-{w)-r,  to  turn  aside,  sojourn,  103 

^■"S  5'-(,y)-f/,  tobind,  109 

3bj  g-l-b,  to  drag  ofi",  107 

1^5  5f-/-c?,  to  tear  off,  107 

iba  (/-^-if,  to  lay  bare,  107,  108 

rta  5'-''-^,  to  smooth  off,  107,  108 

tibl  (/-i-p,  to  carve,  grave,  158 

D5  5'-™,  to  bring  together,  140 

11DS  5'-'K-'">  to  complete,  141 

"ij  $'-'■>  to  drag,  scrape,  roll,    101,  106 
109,  110 

3"i3  9-^-by  to  be  scabby,  106 

bin  ^-'■-^j  to  drag  off,  109 

"115  gurn-u,  threshing-floor,  109 

Sl"ii  ^-'■■/'j  sweep  away,  110 

XI  d-',  to  move  swiftly,  fly,  151 

-im  c?-A-r,  to  revolve,  103 

11"!  c?-(w)-r,  to  turn  round,  103 

11  c?-y,  to  fly,  151 

bl  c?-/,  to  hang  loose,  100,  108 

ibl  d-l-w,  to  suspend,  108,  115 

11  d-r,  to  move  round,  103,  109 

am  d-r-g,  to  go  by  steps,  107,  109 

•^11  d-r-k,  to  tread,  107,  109 


INDEX  n. 


175 


*l2h  h-b-r,  to  divide  up, 
-^bn  h4-lc,  to  go  away, 
Bnii  h-r-m,  to  be  high. 


99,  129 
99 
99 


i:i1  iv-b-l,  to  flow,  102 
1*11  w-d-y  (in  caus.  forms),  to  make 

known,  163 

55*11  v-d-',  to  know,  163 

"jhl  vxiin-u,  wine,  167 
^31  w-k-l,  to  contain,              100,  115 

101  vV-(/,  to  set,  place,  152 

Kll  v-r-',  to  guard  against,  fear,  166 

111  v-r-rf,  to  go  down,  99 

511  v-r-',  to  fear,  156 

p11  w-r-k,  to  be  green  or  yellow,  128 

p11  w-r-k,  to  be  behind,  146 

■jni  w-t-n,  to  be  perpetual,  142 


lit  z-r-w,  to  scatter, 
51T  z-r-',  to  sow. 


en 
nan 

tin 

pin 

in 

Bin 

nnn 


W-/,  to  let  go, 
h-t'  to  cut, 
h-l-b,  to  hew  wood, 
A-m,  to  be  warm, 
h-m-d,  to  be  ardent, 
h-n-k,  to  press  tight 
h-r,  to  cut  open, 
h-r-t,  to  grave, 
A-r-s,  to  cut  open, 
k-r-s,  to  plough, 
h-t-ni,  to  close,  seal. 


illj  t-(w)-l,  to  be  long, 

fill  yum-u,  day, 
01  yam-u,  sea, 

"(131  y-m-n,  to  be  strong  (?), 
5211 3/-S-',  to  place, 
ipi  y-k-d,  to  burn, 
ypi  y-k-s>  to  awake, 
lc;i  y-s-r,  to  be  right, 


110 
110 

100 
106 
106 
107 
107 
100 
108 
108 
134 
134 
100 

101 

103 
103 
100 
110 
124 
100 
100,  115 


33  k^,  to  bend, 
113  k-w-y,  to  burn, 
bl3  k-(w)-l,  to  contain, 
'j13  k-(w)-n,  to  be  fixed, 
1*3  k-(w)-r,  to  dig, 

^3  k-l,  to  enclose, 
K^S  k-l-',  to  shut. 


102 
123 
144 

102,  115 
132 

100,  155 
106,  115,155 


13  k-n,  to  be  fixed, 
03  k-p,  to  bend, 
113  k-r-w,  to  pierce,  dig, 
ni3  k-r-t,  to  cut  off, 

"{Xb  ^-'-^j  to  send. 


102 

99,  147 

132 

132 

99 


IXa  m-'-d,  to  be  large,              102 

145 

"^Xa  m-'-y,  to  extend. 

145 

DXB  m-'-s',  to  flow. 

102 

iri  m-d,  to  extend,                     102,145 

ima  »i-^-r,  to  sell. 

104 

■il^a  7«-(w)-?4,  to  tiiink,  conceive, 

162 

11^  m-(w)-r,  to  exchange, 

104 

inna  m-h-r,  to  exchange  (?), 

104 

ba^a  m-t-l,  to  extend. 

101 

■773  '«-^".  to  press  down, 

157 

Xba  »i-^-',  to  fill, 

106 

ija  m-n-y,  to  measure  out. 

162 

073  m-s',  to  be  liquid, 

102 

1573  m-'-k,  to  press. 

158 

5153  WJ-'":^,  to  rub  hard,  to  press, 

137 

1173  m-r-d,  to  bruise. 

138 

ni53  m-r-h,  to  rub. 

137 

1173  ^^•i'-y<  to  rub  against. 

137 

V173  m-r-s^  to  press  upon, 
p173  m-r-k,  to  rub  off". 

139 

137 

155  n-g-r,  to  move  along, 

101 

15  n-d,  to  move  violently. 

103 

ins  w-A-''.  to  shine  forth, 

103 

113  n-[w)-d,  to  flee. 

103 

^11  n-(w)-r,  to  shine. 

103 

1-35  n-t-w,  to  stretch  forwards, 

143 

50i  ""'"')  to  set  in, 

110 

-j5  n-k,  to  strike. 

109 

135  n-t-_y,  to  smite, 

108 

105  n-s'-k,  to  weave  together, 
p5  n-k,  to  strike  apart, 

101 

109 

•ip5  n-t-y,  to  be  separate,  pure,  109,115 

"(Hi  n-t-n,  to  give,                       101 

142 

SnS  ""'"' >  to  stretch  forwards, 

143 

OD  s'-h,  to  turn  round. 

103 

500  s'ab-'-u,  seven. 

110 

10  s'-«?,  to  set  down, 

153 

mo  ^-h-r,  to  be  round, 

104 

110  s'-{ti))-r,  to  turn  aside. 

104 

mo  s'-h-r,  to  traverse, 

104 

-JO  s'-k,  to  weave,  cover, 

101 

176 


INDEX  n. 


t]0  s'-p,  to  scrape, 
■"D  s'-r,  to  bind, 

IS  '-d,  to  arrange,  number,  103 

TlS  '-(w)-c?,  to  repeat,  103 

pis  '-(w)-k,  to  restrain,  148 

*>■©  '-(M')-r,  to  be  bare,  109 

TS  '-2,  to  be  strong,  115 
pJS  '-n-k,  to  put  around  the  neck, 

(denom.),  100 

'SS  '-S-W,  to  be  firm,  109 

DSS  '-s-m,  to  be  strong,  great,  109 

3pS  '-'^^-i,  to  arch,  148 

tpS  '-H>  to  bind,  twist,  148 

Dps  '-k-m,  to  twist,  restrain,  148 

VpS  '-fp-s,  to  twist,  148 

^pS  '-k-r,  to  cut  out,  101 

lypS  '-^-s,  to  twist,  148 

1"iS  '-r-w,  to  be  bare,  109 

D"iS  '-r-m,  to  be  bare,  109 
■^'-iS  '-'■-^.  to  arrange,               101,  147 

ins  '-'-^'j  to  prepare,  106 

pis  p-(w)-<,  to  spread  out,  130 
IKS  p-?-r,  to  open.                    111,  130 

bS  p-l,  to  cleave,  107 

5^B  p-l-g,  to  divide,  107 

tabs  p-H>  to  break  away,  108 

pbs  p-^-'?:,  to  cleave,  131 

nS  p-''.  to  cleave,   107,  108,  109,  111 

'n"iS  p-»'-c?,  to  separate,  107 

t"iS  p-'"-*.  to  branch  out,  108 
■|"nB  p-r-k,  to  crush,                  109,  131 

bis  p-r-s',  to  break  up,  110 

yns  p-r-s,  to  break  open,  111 

p"iS  p-r-k,  to  separate,  131 
laiS  p-r-s,  to  disperse.             111,  116 

^'Q'^'Q  p-r-s-d,  to  spread  out,  116 

ri3  p-f,  to  break  off,  130 

Pins  p-f-b>  to  open,  130 

IS  s-d,  to  go  aside,  149 

pis  ?-«?-'?;,  to  go  right,  149 
I'-S  s-(w)-c?,  to  go  after,  hunt,        149 

sbs  ?-^',  to  incline,  107 

D^S  ?-^-^,  to  hang  up,  106 

OS  s-m,  to  shut  up.  111 

K^3  ?-"*-'>  to  thirst,  106 

PBS  s-m-J,  to  be  silent,  1 1 1 

US  s-'-J,  to  go  up  or  down,  149 


99     iss  s-'-r,  to  be  small,  105 

99      IS  s-r,  to  bind,  press  together,  105,157 


nip 

UJIp 

dip 
lip 

TP 
i^p 
t\hp 
lap 
IP 

N3p 

ip 

^P 

Bip 

rp 

laip 


W-A,  to  kindle,  124 

k-ds,  to  be  pure,  sacred,  115 

k-(w)-m,  to  stand  up,  104 

k-(w)-r,  to  dig  or  cut  out,  132 

k-{i/)-n,  to  fashion,  105 

k-l-w,  to  roast,  burn,  124 

fc-l-p,  to  tear  off,  133 

k-m-r,  to  make  round,  148 

k-n,  to  be  fixed,  102,  105,  108 

fp-n-',  to  be  moved  with  passion,  106 
k-n-y,  to  found,  acquire,  108 

k-r,  to  cut,  dig,  101,  132 

k-r,  to  be  cold,  161 

k-r-t,  to  cut  up,  132,  135 

karn-u,  horn,  165 

k-r-s,  to  cut  off,  134 

k-r-s,  to  cut  off,  184 


''Xl  r-'-y,  to  see,  115 

J1  r-g,  to  move  quickly,  150 

131  r-g-z,  to  tremble,  150 

^51  ''-3-^»  to  move  about,  run,  160 

11  r-d,  to  move,  push,  100 

^air  s-b-l,  to  flow,  102 

SnU)  s-6-',  to  be  full,  110 

aiia  s-{v})-h,  to  return,  103 

1i;!J  s-(w)-r,  to  move  quickly,  149 

n-iUJ  s-(?/)-<,  to  lay  down,  105 

•^m  s-^",  to  cut,  pierce,  185 

33^3  s-A;-6,  to  lie,  102 

•p;y  s-^-w,  to  establish,  102 

D^O  s-^-?,  to  be  strong,  rule,  115 

1o;i3  s-m-r,  to  pierce,  infix,  160 

p5;a  s-n-fc,  to  strangle,  100 

pO  s-^.  to  cleave,  135 
ipO  s-^-y,  to  moisten,  pour  out,       160 

i;a  s-r,  to  saw,  108 

Blia  s-r-<,  to  cut  open,  108 

Slia  s-r-',  to  glide  along,  160 

nU3  s-t,  to  lay,  105 

•^n  t-k,  to  cut  into,  136 

in  <-^  to  raise,  suspend,  151 

•tin  '-/-w,  to  hang,  adhere  to,  152 
•jn  t-n,  to  stretch,                    101,  141 

Ipn  '-^-">  to  be  straight,  102 


ANDOVER    PUBLICATIONS, 

EMBRACING 

VALUABLE   COMMENTAEIES   AND   BIBLICAL  WOUES. 
W.   F.  DRAPER,   PUBLISHER, 

ANDOVER,  MASS. 
Full  descriptive  Catalogues  free  on  application. 


ELLICOTT. 

Critical  and  Grammatical  Commentaries  on  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  With 
Revised  Translations.  By  Rt.  Rev.  Charles  J.  EUicott,  Bisliop  of 
Gloucester  and  Bristol.     8vo. 

Galatians.    With  an  Introductory  Notice  by  Prof.  C.  E.  Stowe,  $1.25. 

Ephesians.  $1.25.  Thessalonians,  $1.25. 

Philippians,  Colossians,  Philemon,  $1.75.  Pastoral  Epistles,  $1.75. 
The  whole  Set  in  Two  Volumes,  bevelled  edges,  $6.75. 

"  It  is  the  crowninu:  excellence  of  these  Commcntarie*  that  they  are  exactly  what 
they  profess  to  be — critical  and  r/rainmatical,  and  therefore  in  the  best  sense  of  the 
term,  exefjeticnl His  results  are  worthy  of  all  confidence.  He  is  more  care- 
ful than  Tischendorf,  slower  and  more  steadily  deliberate  than  Alford,  and  more 
patiently  laborious  than  any  other  living  New  Testament  critic,  with  the  exception, 
perhaps,  of  Tregclles." 

"  To  Bishop  Ellicott  must  be  assigned  the  first  rank,  if  not  the  first  place  in  the 
first  rank,  of  English  biblical  scholarship.  The  scries  of  Commentaries  on  the 
Pauline  Epistle  are  in  tlie  highest  style  of  critical  exegesis." —  Methodist  Quurter/i/. 

Abo  hij  tlip.  same  Author. 

Historical  Lectures  on  the  Life  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Being  the  Ilnlsean 
Lectures  for  the  year  1859.  With  Notes,  Critical,  Historical,  and  E.x- 
planatory.     Crown  8vo.  $1.50 

"An  able  hook  by  an  able  man.  It  deals  with  the  facts  rather  than  with  doc- 
trines or  truths  of  gospel  history.  It  designs  to  harmonize,  synchronize,  and  illus- 
trate those  facts.  It  is  also  apologetic  in  its  character,  being  designed  to  vindicate 
the  historical  unity  of  the  Evangelists.  It  is,  therefore,  a  very  seasonable  and  val- 
uable book."  —  Princeton  Review. 

*HACKETT. 

A  Commentary  on  the  Original  Text  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  By  Horatio 
B.  Ilackett,  I). D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  Newton  Theological 
Institution.     8vo.  S3.50 

A  rc-issue  of  the  last  edition  revised  by  Professor  H.ackett "  We  regard  it 

as  the  best  Commentary  on  the  Act.s  which  can  be  found  in  the  English  or  any 
other  language."  —  Bihliotheca  Sacra. 

1-81  E 


Books  Published  by  W.  F.  Draper. 

HENDERSON. 

Oommentaries,  Critical,  Philological,  and  Exegetical.    Translated  from  the 

Ori2;inal  Hebrew.     By  E.  Henderson,  D.D.     8vo. 
The  Book  of  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets.    With  a  Biographical  Sketch  of 

the  Author  by  Professor  E.  P.  Barrows.  $3.00. 

Jeremiah  and  Lamentations,  $2.25.  Ezekiel,  $1.75. 

"  Plis  Commentaries  on  the  Minor  Prophets  and  on  Isaiah,  are  probably  the  best 
specimens  of  exegetical  talent  and  learning  which  have  ever  appeared  in  England. 

The  same  diligence,  learning,  sobriety,  and  judiciousness  appear  in  Ezckiel 

as  characterize  the  learned  author's  commentaries  on  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  the 
Minor  Propliets."  —  BHdiolheca  Sacra. 

"  The  learning,  the  sound  judgment,  and  the  earnest  religious  spirit  of  the  author 
stamp  a  standard  value  on  his  commentaries." —  Baptist  Quarter/ ij. 

"  The  work  is  invaluable  for  its  philological  research  and  critical  acumen 

The  notes  are  learned,  reliable,  and  practical."  —  American  Presbyterian. 

LIGHTFOOT. 

St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  A  Revised  Text,  with  Introduction, 
Notes,  and  Dissertations.  By  J.  B.  Lighttbot,  D.D.,  Hulsean  Professor 
of  Divinity,  and  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.     8vo.         S3. 00 

"  For  a  scholar's  use  Dr.  Lightfoot's  Commentary  is  invaluable.  He  and  Bisliop 
Ellicott  worthily  supplement  each  other.  The  revised  text  is  one  of  the  best  recent 
contributions  to  a  complete  text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  and  the  criticisms 
on  the  text  are  concise  and  to  the  point."  —  American  Presbijterian  Review. 

"Among  the  modern  English  commentaries  on  the  New  Testament  Scriptures 
this  appears  to  us  to  be  the  best.  The  critical  dissertations,  which  form  a  leading 
feature  of  it,  arc  in  the  highest  degree  valuable." — jS^ew  Einjlander. 

"  This  is  a  most  valuable  Commentary.     The  revised  text  is  up  to  the  very  latest 

and  best  critical  scholarship It  is  especially  full  and  satisfactory  on  most  of 

the  leading  topics  connected  with  the  Epistle."  —  Lutheran  Quarterly  Review. 

MURPHY. 

Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentaries,  with  New  Translations.    By  James 

G.  Murphy,  LL.D.,  T.  C.  D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Belfast.     8vo." 
Genesis.    With  a  Preface  by  J.  P.  Thompson,  D.D.,  New  York.  $3.0O. 

Exodus,  $2.50.  Exodus,  crown  8vo.,  $1.25, 

Leviticus,  $2.25.  Psalms,  $3.50, 

"  The  Commentaries  of  Murphy  have  many  excellences.  They  are  clear,  di* 
criminating,  and  comprehensive."  —  Baptist  Quartcrlij. 

"Like  the  other  Commentaries  of  Dr.  JNIurpby,  liis  Commentary  on  the  Psalms 
is  distinguished  by  the  ease  and  perspicuity  of  its  style,  its  I'rcedom  from  pedantry, 
and  the  excellent  religious  spirit  pervading  it.  The  Introduction,  occupying  the 
first  fifty  ]iages,  is  lucid  and  interesting."  —  Bibliothrca  Sacra. 

"  Thus  far  nothing  iias  appeared  in  this  country  for  half  a  century  on  the  first 
two  books  of  the  Pentateuch  so  valuable  as  tlie  present  two  volumes  [on  Genesis 
and  Exodus].     Ilis  style  is  lucid,  animated,  and  often  eloquent.     His  pages  afford 

golden  suggestions  and  key-thoughts Some  of  the  laws  of  interpretation  are 

stated  witii  so  fresh  and  natural  clearness  and  lorce  that  they  will  permanently 
stand."  —  Methodist  Qnaii.erly. 

"  The  most  valuable  contril)ution  that  has  for  a  long  time  been  made  to  the  many 
aids  for  the  critical  study  of  the  Old  Testament  is  Mr.  Draper's  republication  of 
Dr.  Murphy  on  Genesis.  Dr.  Murphy  adds  to  a  tliorough  knowledge  of  the  He- 
brew, and  of  the  science  of  interpretation,  great  common  sense,  genuine  wit,  and 
admirable  i)Ower  of  expression." —  Comp-egationalist. 

"  It  is  on  the  whole  one  of  the  best  expositions  of  the  Psalms  accessible  for  popu- 
lar instruction,  and  a  valuable  auxiliary  to  the  work  of  preachers  and  teachers." — 
Examiner  and  Chronicle, 

2-81  II 


Books  Published  by  W.  F.  Draper. 

PEROWNE. 

The  Book  of  Psalms.  A  New  Tmnshition.  Witli  Introductions  and  Notes 
Explanatory  and  Critical.  By  J.  J.  Stewart  Perowne,  D.D.,  Follow  of 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  and  Canon  of  Llandaff.  Reprinted  from 
the  Third  Englisli  Edition.     Two  Volumes.     8vo.  $6.7r) 

"  The  elaborate  work  by  Canon  Perowne  has  some  specially  attractive  features, 
not  only  in  the  notes  upon  the  text,  but  in  the  preliminary  Essays  on  Hebrew 
I'oetry  ;  tiie  Ori<,nn  and  Formation  of  the  Psalter;  its  Use  in  the  Church;  its 
Theolofry  ;  the  Inscriptions  of  the  Psalms,  etc.  Special  attention  is  given  to  the 
occasions  and  circumstances  in  which  the  Psalms  were  written,  as  havinj,^  an  im- 
portant l)carin,2:  upon  their  prophetic  character,  as  well  as  aiding-  in  their  elucida- 
tion."—  Tlie  New  York  Observer. 

"  It  comprises  in  itself  more  excellences  than  any  other  commentary  on  the 
Psalms  in  uur  lanauaiic,  and  we  know  of  no  single  commentary  in  the"  German 
language  which,  all  things  considered,  is  preferable  to  it."  —  Baptist  Quarterli/. 

STUART. 

Critical  and  Esegetical  Commentaries,  with  translations  of  the  Text,  by 
Moses  Stuart,  late  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  Audover  Theological 
Seminary.    12mo. 

Romans,  $1.75.  Hebrews,  $1.75.  Proverbs,  $1.50. 

Ecclesiastes,  $1.25. 

The  Commentaries  on  the  Romans,  Hebrews,  arid  Ecclesiastes  are  edited  and* 
revised  by  Prof.  P.  U.  C.  Pobbins. 

"  The  Commentaries  of  Professor  Stuart  abide  the  test  of  time.  Thouirh  some- 
what diffusive  in  style,  they  contain  so  much  thorough  discussion  of  doctrinal 
points,  so  much  valuable  criticism  on  pregnant  words,  and  such  an  earnest  reli- 
gious spirit,  that  thev  must  live  for  generations  as  a  part  of  the  apparatus  for  the 
biblical  student."  —  The  Independent. 

"  His  Commentary  on  the  Romans  is  the  most  elaborate  of  all  his  works.  It  has 
elicited  more  discussion  than  any  of  his  other  excgetical  volumes.  It  is  the  result 
of  long-continued,  patient  thought.  It  expresses  in  clear  style  his  maturest  con- 
clusions. Regarding  it  in  all  its  rehitions,  its  antecedents  and  consequents,  we 
pronounce  it  the  most  important  Commentary  which  has  a]>peared  in  this  country 

on  this  Epistle The  Commentary  on  Proverbs  is  the  last  work  from  the  pen 

of  Prof.  Stuart.  Both  this  Commentary  and  the  one  preceding  it,  on  Ecclesiastes, 
exhibit  a  mellowness  of  spirit  which  savors  of  the  good  man  ripening  for  heaven! 
.....  In  learning  and  critical  acumen  they  are  equal  to  his  former  works."  — 
Bihlioiheca  Sacra. 

Miscellaneous  Works  of  Professor  Moses  Stuart. 
Critical  History  and  Defence  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon.    l2mo.    Revised 
Edition.  ^1.50 

"  The  work  covers  ground  unoccupied,  in  the  same  form  and  extent,  by  any 
other  English  or  American  work.  And  yet  it  is  ground  with  which  not  onlv'evcry 
biblical  scholar,  but  every  well-trained  minister,  ought  to  be  familiar."  —  Methodist 
Quarterly. 

Miscellanies.  Consisting  of,  1.  Letters  to  Dr.  Channing  on  the  Trinity;  2. 
Two  Sermons  on  the  Atonement ;  3.  Sacramental  Sermon  on  the  Lamb 
of  God  ;  4.  Dedication  Sermon  —  Christianity  a  distinct  Religion  ;  5. 
Letter  to  Dr.  Channing  on  Religious  Liberty  ;  6.  Supplemental  Notes 
and  Postcripts  of  additional  matter.     12mo.     pp.  xii  and  369.  $1.25 

A  Grammar  [Greek]  of  the  New  Testament  Dialect.  Second  Edition,  cor- 
rected, and  mostly  written  anew.     8vo.     Half  cloth.  $1.25 

4-81  P 


Books  Published  by  W.  F.  Draper. 

Cary.    An  luf  rod  net  ion  to  the  Greeh  of  the  New  Testament. 

By  George  L.  Gary,  of  the  Meadville  Theological  Seminary.     12mo. 

pp.  72.  75  cents 

"  This  small  volume  has  been  prepared  for  persons,  either  students  of  theolojry, 
or  others  who  have  not  had  the  advantan:e  of  a  knowlcdjje  of  the  Greek,  and  who 
nevertheless  would  be  ahxd  to  read  the  New  Testament  in  its  ori^-inal  tont^ue.  It 
gives  the  rudiments  of  the  language  so  far  as  absolutely  necessary  for  the  nnder- 
standinj;  of  New  Testament  Greek.  It  is  well  adapted  to  its  purpose,  and  will  prove 
of  c.reat  service  to  such  as  have  not  had  the  advantage  of  a  classical  education." — 
Lutheran  QiKtrterli/. 

"  The  simplicity  of  its  method,  its  conciseness  and  perspicuity  admirably  adapt 
it  to  the  use  of  such  persons.  With  a  moderate  degree  of  application,  any  one 
with  an  ordinary  capacity  for  acquiring  language  may  in  a  short  time  master  these 
elementary  lessons,  and  having  done  so  will  be  able  to  '  proceed  at  once  to  the 
reading  of  the  easier  ]Jortions  of  the  New  Testament.'  "  —  Theological  and  Homiletic 
Monthhj. 

"  This  is  substantially  a  primary  Greek  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament,  in- 
tended for  those  who  have  had  no  previous  knowledge  of  the  language."  —  Tlve 
Central  Baptist. 

"A  handy  little  manual  for  those  who  wish  to  become  familiar  enough  with  Greek 
to  read  the  New  Testament." — Zion's  Herald. 

Mitchell.     The  Ctitical  TImul-booh-.    A  Guide  to  the  Authenticity, 

Canon,  and  Text  of  the  New  Testainent.    By  Edward  0.  Mitchell,  D.D. 

Illustrated  by  a  Map,  Diagrams,  and  Tables.    12mo.  $1.75 

The  plan  of  the  book  embraces,  in  the  first  place,  a  view  of  the  present  field  of 
controversy  on  the  subject  of  the  Authenticity  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures 
as  viewed  iVom  a  historical  and  geographical  stand-point.  This  is  followed  by  a 
brief  discussion  of  the  leading  |)oints  in  the  History  of  the  Canon,  and  then  by  a 
resitwg  of  the  suliject  of  Textual  Criticism  —  History  of  the  Text.  In  this  part 
of  the  work,  and  the  fourteen  Tables  which  accompany  it,  care  has  been  taken  to 
combine  brevity  with  the  greatest  possililc  accuracy  of  statement.  The  best  recent 
authorities  have  been  consulted,  and  the  author  has  received  valuable  aid  from 
eminent  scholars  in  England  and  America,  especially  from  Dr  Ezra  Abbot,  of 
Cambridge,  who  has  bestowed  upon  the  whole  of  Part  III.  and  the  accompanying 
Tables  much  patient  thought,  suggesting  many  new  points  of  interest  and  value. 
One  of  these  tal)les,  for  instance,  shows  at  a  glance  what  was  the  state  of  civiliza- 
tion at  a  given  ])eriod  ;  what  writers  flourished,  whether  poets  or  jdiilosophers  or 
])hysicists  or  historians.  A  second  table  shows  what  Christian  Fathers  were  con- 
tem))o;aneous.  Anotlier  table  gives  a  list  of  witnesses  and  actors  in  the  scenes  of 
Christian  history  and  the  places  in  which  they  acted.  Others  give  catalogues  of  dis- 
puted books,  the  uncial  Mss.  the  cursive  Mss.  ancient  versions,  etc.  There  are  fur- 
nished also  several  facsimiles  of  different  codices  of  the  New  Testament. 

"  It  is  certainly  '  A  Guide  '  which  must  prove  exceedingly  convenient  and  val- 
uable to  .scholars.  I  have  read  and  re-read  it  with  the  exception  of  some  of  tho 
Tables,  and  have  found  it  accurate  and  to  the  point,  giving  the  essential  facts  clearly, 
and  in  a  suitable  form  for  reference.  i\s  a  '  Handbook'  for  frequent  use  I  know  of 
nothing  cijual  to  it."  —  Alcah  llovq],  D.D.,  Prea.  Newton  Tkeolor/ical  Institution. 

"  It  is  brief,  clear,  and,  so  far  as  wc  can  see  quite  accurate,  and  a  tiioroughly 
serviceable  and  important  book." — Cont/nr/utionalist. 

"  This  volume  gathers  up  and  presents  in  a  comparatively  brief  compass  a  great 
deal  that  is  worth  knowing  in  regard  to  several  branches  of  biblical  criticism. 
It  contains  wiiat  every  thorough  stuilent  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  needs  to  under- 
stand."—  7'Ae  Churchman. 

"  The  tables  at  the  end  are  a  feature  of  the  book  of  peculiar  advantage.  It  is  to 
be  recommended  to  all  students  of  the  New  Testament." —  C.  W.  Ilodfje  in  Pres- 
byterian Review. 

"  Of  this  book  it  may  be  most  truly  said  '  multnm  in  pan-o.'  It  well  answers 
the  j)ur])Ose  for  which  it  was  designed.  It  furnishes  the  material  necessary  to  a 
refutation  of  the  charge  so  frequently  made  that  the  New  Testament  is  largely 
mythical.     It  is  a  strong  defence  of  Christianity."  —  Baptist  Quarterly, 

4-81 


Books  Published  by  W.  F.  Draper. 

Davies.    A  Compendious  and  Complete  Hebrew  and  Chaldee 

Lexicon  of  the  Old  Testament ;  with  an  English-Hebrew  Index. 

By  Benjamin  Davies,  Ph.D.,  LL.D,  Carefully  Eevised,  with  a  concise 
Statement  of  the  Principles  of  Hebrew  Grammar,  by  Edward  0.  Mitchell, 

D.D.    8vo.  Cloth,  $4.00  ;  Morocco  backs,  $4.75 

"  It  is  in  many  respects  an  improvement  upon  either  of  the  Lexicons  now  in 
use.  Dr.  Davies  modestly  calls  himself  the  editor  of  the  work,  hut  it  is  anythin": 
but  a  mere  revision  or  compilation.  Nearly  every  page  bears  evidence  of  original 
thought  and  independent  investigation,  and  many  improvements  have  been  made 
upon  the  work  of  previous  lexicographers  in  the  handling  of  roots  and  derivatives. 

"  While  the  Lexicons  of  Gesenius  and  Fiirst  have  been  made  the  chief  basi^,  — 
as  they  must  be  for  any  genuine  advance  in  this  direction,  —  the  definitions  have  all 
been  re-written  and  condensed  without  being  abridged,  so  as  to  make  them  more 
onvenient  for  reference,  and  the  work  less  bulky  and  expensive." 

So  far  from  being  an  abridgment,  the  jiresmt  edition  iviU  be  found  to  contain  over  a 
thousand  more  Hebrew  words  or  forms  than  a])pear  in  Tregelles's  or  Robinson's  Gesenius, 
besides  incorporating  into  the  body  of  the  work  all  the  grammatical  forms  con- 
tained in  Robinson's  Analytical  Appendix. 

"  I  regard  it  as  a  very  valuable  addition  to  our  Hebrew  text-books.  It  is  con- 
cise, accurate,  sufficiently  full  in  definitions,  and  admirably  adapted  for  the  use  of 
students.  Prof.  Mitchell's  admirable  eompend  of  the  Principles  of  Hebrew  Gram- 
mar at  the  beginning  of  the  liook,  and  the  English-Hebrew  Index  at  the  end,  are 
valuable  helps  not  found  in  the  ordinary  Lexicons  of  Hebrew."  —  Prof.  Henri/  A. 
Buttz,  in  Drew  Theological.  Seminary. 

Mitchell.  A  Concise  Statement  of  the  PtHuciples  of  Hebreiv 
Grammar.  For  the  Use  of  Teachers.  By  Edward  0.  Mitchell,  D.D. 
8vo.    Paper,  15  cents 

(jesenius.    Gesenius'  Hebrew  Grammar.    Translated  by  Benjamin 

Davies,  LL.D.,  from  Rddiger's  Edition.   Thoroughly  Eevised  and  Enlarged, 

on  the  Basis  of  the  Latest  Edition  of  Prof.  E.  Kautzsch,  D.D,,  and  from 

other  recent  Authorities,  by  Edward  0.  Mitchell,  D.D.    With  full  Subject, 

Scripture,  and  Hebrew  Indexes.    8vo.    Cloth,  $3.09 

In  prcjiaring  an  edition  of  Davies'  Gesenius'  Grammar  which  should  be  suited 

to  the  wants  of  American  teachers  and  students,  the  Editor  set  before  himself  the 

aim  of  combining  the  acknowledged  excellences  of  Gesenius  with  a  more  lucid  and 

practical  arrangement. 

Availing  himself  of  the  essential  improvements  of  K.tutzsch  (indeed  nearly  every 
page  and  ])aragrajih  has  felt  the  influence  of  his  scientific  discernment  in  the  sug- 
gestion of  im]jroved  forms  of  statement)  the  Editor  has  also  derived  some  hints  from 
the  Grammars  of  Ewald,  Stade,  Delitzsch,  and  others.  No  change  has  been  made 
in  the  numbering  of  sections,  and  the  notes  of  Dr.  D.avies  have  been  preserved,  so 
far  as  they  are  not  superseded  I)y  the  text  as  reconstructed. 

A  new  and  important  feature  of  this  edition  consists  in  the  very  full  Indexes  of 
Subjects,  of  Scripture,  and  of  Hebrew  words.  The  Hebrew  index  will  be  found 
especially  valuable  for  the  explanation  of  difficult  forms. 

"  This  Grammar  certainly  deserves  a  high  rank  among  those  available  for  the 
use  of  English-speaking  scholars.  It  is  of  convenient  size.  It  is  clearly  j)rinted. 
It  has  the  virtue,  so  rare  in  works  translated  from  the  German,  of  being  in  good 
and  intelligible  English.  It  is  much  more  full  in  the  number  of  topics  it  treats 
than  most  Hebrew  Grammars.  Its  views  of  the  phenomena  and  the  history  of  the 
language  includes  tiie  latest  discoveries.  In  its  ])resentation  of  Hebrew  syntax 
this  edition  has  greatly  improved  upon  the  older  editions  of  Gesenius." — The  Pres- 
byterian Review. 

"A  feature  which  will  bf>  found  to  add  much  to  the  convenience  of  the  student, 
is  the  placing  of  tal)les  of  the  verbs,  nouns,  numerals,  and  ])refix  prepositions  witli. 
suffixes  together,  at  the  beginning  of  the  book." —  The  iVatchman, 

5-81 


Books  Published  by  W.  F.  Draper. 

Wright.     Tlie  Logic  of  Christian  Evidences.     By   G.  Prederick 
Wright.    16mo.    pp.328.    Cloth,  $1.50. 

"  What  is  wanted  on  the  theistic  and  Christian  side,  and  what  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Wripht  has  endeavored  to  supply,  is  a  convenient  text-book  or  manual  adapted  to 
the  thought  of  our  own  day,  marking  out  the  line  of  the  Christian  dei'ences  which 
iiis  party  are  now  holding  and  mean  to  stand  by.  Moreover,  what  is  wanted,  and, 
indeed,  is  necessary  to  secure  attention,  over  and  above  ability  and  learning  —  of 
which  our  author  seems  to  have  a  fair  share  —  is  candor,  and  a  disposition  to  rest 
within  the  lines  of  greatest  strength  ;  and  in  these  respects  our  author  appears  to 
advantage.  His  book  is  throughout  sensible  and  considerate,  therefore  inviting 
and  with  promise  of  usefulness.  It  is  not  often  that  a  parish  clergyman  is  found 
so  well  fitted  as  he  shows  himself  to  be  —  by  a  knowledge  of  what  natural  science 
is,  and  what  its  methods  and  rightful  claims  are — for  dealing  on  the  one  hand 
with  the  'oppositions  of  science'  to  religion,  and  on  the  other  with  the  objections 

of  theologians  to  the  tendencies  or  recent  achievements  of  science And  it  is 

a  crowning  merit  of  this  little  volume  that  the  subject  is  so  treated  '  as  not  to  ex- 
aggerate the  antagonism  between  modern  science  and  Christianity.' The 

author  has  produced  an  acceptable  elementary  text-book,  as  well  as  an  interesting 
volume  for  the  general  reader."  —  The  Nation,  April  8tb. 

"  In  fact,  the  faith-element  is  just  as  real  and  just  as  prominent  in  science  as  in 
theological  doctrine.  In  truth,  theological  doctrine  has  the  element  of  fact  in  a 
degree  not  one  whit  less  than  physical  science  may  rightfully  claim  for  itself  In 
truth,  what  we  believe  preponderates  in  an  immense  degree  over  what  we  are  fitted 
to  know,  and  this  in  all  things.  The  great  and  special  service  rendered  by  Mr. 
Wright  is  in  demonstrating  this  proposition  —  in  exhibiting  its  accuracy  by  an 
analysis  of  contents.  He  has  shown  that  science  builds  upon  simple  beliefs  and 
inferences  therefrom,  by  producing  the  bill  of  items.  His  appreciative  reader  will 
never  have  the  hardihood  to  repeat  the  claim  that  as  a  scientist  he  knows,  and  as  a 
religionist  he  simply  believes."  —  Church  Leadei;  March. 

"  Several  things  impress  the  reader  strongly.  One  is  t>hat  the  book  is  the  work 
of  a  thoroughly  competent  mind.  In  these  days  of  philosophical  dabblers,  it  is  re- 
freshing to  read  the  writings  of  a  man  who  has  the  grip  of  a  master  upon  his 
theme.  Another  is  the  care  with  which  the  volume  has  been  written.  It  contains 
no  lumber,  but  is  concise,  clear,  and  exact.  Another  is  its  completeness.  No  loose 
ends  of  thought  are  left  hanging.  Suggested  points  which  deserve  notice  receive 
it  sufficiently,  if  only  in  a  word  or  two.  Another  is  its  fairness.  Every  difficulty 
is  stated  frankly,  and  no  attempt  is  made  to  evade  unfavorable  facts.  Tlie  argu- 
ment lias  vast  inherent  force,  i>ut  the  manner  of  presenting  it  adds  much  to  its 
weight." —  I'he  Comiregalionalist,  March  31st. 

"  It  will  he  seen  that  Mr.  Wright's  work  really  gives  more  than  its  title  would 
lead  us  to  expect.  Instead  of  being  merely  a  logic,  i.e.  an  inquiry  into  the  method 
of  Christian  evidence,  it  is  really,  in  addition,  a  hand-book  of  those  evidences 
themselves.  We  may  say,  too,  that  we  know  of  no  other  book  which  gives  ia  so 
small  a  compass,  and  with  such  clearness,  an  account  of  the  entire  range  of  Chris- 
tian evidences.  Mr.  Wright  has  made  good  use  of  the  most  recent  literature  of  his 
wide  subject  without,  however,  falling  into  the  rSle  of  a  mere  compiler.  On  the 
contrary,  his  little  book  is  characterized  by  unity,  freshness,  and  independence.  . .. 
''i'he  work  is  well  fitted  to  be  \nit  into  the  hands  of  intelligent  readers  who  wish  to 
get  a  careful,  general  view  of  the  converging  and  cumulating  evidences  of  Chris- 
tianity prior  to  entering  upon  more  special  investigations.  No  one  can  rise  from 
its  study  without,  at  all  events,  feeling  that  a  good  deal  still  needs  to  be  done 
before  Christianity  is  snuflTed  out  of  tlic  world."  —  Leeds  (Eng.)  Mercunj,  JIareh. 

"The  peculiar  grace  of  this  volume  is  the  admirable  manner  in  which  all  its 
positions  are  stated.     Its  language  and  style  are  singularly  clear,  and  its  jioints 

arc  presented  in  a  very  calm  and  lucid  manner The  volume  is  a  valuable 

contribution   to  the  literature  of  Christian  ajjologctics,  and  would  make  an  ex- 
cellent Seminary  text-book."  —  Zioii's  Herald,  March  25th. 

"  Mr.  Wright  undertakes  to  show  that  evolution  is  not  incompatible  with  Chris- 
tianity, that  miracles  are  not  incongruous  in  tlie  Christian  system,  and  that  the 
nicibod  and  force  of  the  proof  of  Christianity  are  the  same  as  those  we  rely  on  in 
our  common  beliefs  and  actions.  We  cordiallv  commend  the  book  as  fresh  and 
useful."  —  Indejjendent. 

l()-80 


WARREN   F.  DRAPER, 
rUBLISIIER    AXD    BOOKSELLER, 

ANDOVER,    MASS., 

Publishes  and  offers  for  Sale  tlie  following  Works,  which  will  be  sent, 
post-paid,  on  receipt  of  tha  sums  affixed. 


GARDINER'S  GREEK  HARMONY.  A  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels  in  Greek. 
according  to  the  Text  cf  Tischendorf,  with  a  Collation  of  the  Textus  lleceiitus,  and  ol 
the  Texts  of  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tregolles.  Revised  ICdition.  With  an  Appen 
dix  on  the  I'rinciples  of  Textual  Criticism,  with  a  List  of  all  the  known  Greek  Uncials, 
and  a  Table  representing  graphically  the  I'arts  of  the  Text  of  the  Kew  Testament 
contained  in  each.  By  Frederic  Gardiner  D.D.,  Trofessor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity 
School.    8vo.    $3.00. 

The  Pbincipleb  of  Textual  Criticism.    Paper  covers,  50  cents;  cloth,  flex.,  75  cents. 

"A  Tery  important  matter  In  the  preparation  of  the  Harmony  ii,  of  course,  the  choice  of  a  text.  The  one 
chosen  by  Professor  Gardiner  is  that  of  Tischendorf 's  eighth  edition  of  the  New  Testament.  This  text  wai 
chosen  because  '  it  embodied  the  latest  results  of  criticism,  having  liad  the  advantage  throughout  of  the  Codex 
8inaiticus  and  of  a  more  close  collation  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus.'  It  is  an  obvious  merit  in  this  Harmony, 
that  the  student  can  see  at  a  glance  whether  or  not  the  text  of  Tischendorf  agrees  or  conflicts  witli  that  of 
Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  TregtUea  in  places  where  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion.  It  is  another  excel- 
lence of  the  work  that  the  Greek  text  is  so  accurate,  evincing  the  most  scrupulous  care  and  thorough  scholar- 
ship on  the  part  of  the  editor."—  liibliotheca  iiucra. 

"  The  notes  of  the  author  are  marked  by  scholarship  and  good  sense.  The  student  will  find  it  a  conven- 
ient manual  for  the  study  of  the  Gospels,  because  he  sees  upon  one  and  the  same  page  the  readings  of  the 
principal  editions  and  manuscripts,  together  with  the  quotations  made  by  the  evangelists  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament." —  l*rincetori  Jieineio. 

"  Dr.  Gardiner's  work  has  been  well  done,  and  he  has  given  us  a  Ilarmony  of  great  value." —  Quarterlt 
SevKW  Eiang.  Luth.  Church. 

"  By  this  scholarly  work  Dr.  Gardiner  has  rendered  all  dilligent  students  of  the  Gospel  narrative  an  in- 
Taluable  service.  The  book  furnishes  the  best  results  of  the  ablest  and  most  laborious  investigation  of  all 
known  sources  of  knowledge  regarding  the  original  sacred  text."  —  Reformed  Church  Mnnthly. 

"This  book,  the  result  of  great  research  and  utmost  painstaking,  is  well  worthy  the  consideration  of  all 
Bible  scholars."—  Watchman  and  Refiactor, 

GARDINER'S  ENGLISH  HARMONY.  A  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels  in  Eng- 
lisn,  according  to  the  Authorized  Version ;  corrpcted  by  the  best  Critical  Editions  of  the 
Original.  By  Frederic  Gardiner,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  {school.  8vo. 
Cloth,  $2.00. 

"The  Harmony  in  English,  the  title  of  which  is  given  above.  Is  a  reproduction  of  the  Harmony  in  Greek) 
no  other  changes  being  made  than  such  as  were  required  to  fit  the  work  for  the  use  of  the  English  reader  who 
desires  to  learn  some  of  the  improvements  which  modem  criticisu  has  made  in  the  authorized  English  text." 
—  mbiwtheca  Sacra. 

"  We  gladly  commend  this  Harmony  to  every  intelligent  reader  of  the  Scriptures.  The  need  of  such  « 
guide  is  felt  by  every  thoughtful  Churchman  at  least  once  ayear  — in  Holy  Week  — when  he  desires  to  read 
the  events  of  each  day  in  the  order  in  which  they  happened  so  many  years  ago.  We  do  not  think  that  oui 
laymen  know  how  much  they  will  be  helped  to  the  understanding  of  the  Gospels  by  a  simple  Uarmcay, 
peihsptread  a*  we  suggested  above,  in  connection  with  some  standard  Life  of  our  Lord."  — 27ie  Churchman. 

Iili'B  OF  CHRIST     The  Life  of  our  Lord  in  the  Words  of  the  Gospels.    By  Frederic 
Gardiner,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School.    16mo.    pp.  256.    $1.00. 
'It  li  well  adapted  to  the  convenience  of  pastors,  to  the  needs  of  teachers  in  the  Bible-class  and  8abbath- 
•chool,  to  the  religious  instruction  of  families.    It  bids  fair  to  introduce  improvemento  into  the  style  of  ttach- 
JDg  the  Bible  to  the  young."  —  BAliotheca  Sacra. 

"  This  little  volume  will  not  only  answer  as  a  Harmony  of  the  Gospels  for  the  use  of  those  who  only  eirt 
10  h»Te  results,  but  it  will  t>«  in  excellent  book  to  read  at  family  prayers,  or  to  study  with  a  Biblt-clasa." - 
CVwtian  Union, 

1-8TO. 


Boohs  Published  by  W.   F.  Draper. 

WINER'S  N,  T.  GRAMMAR.  A  Grammar  of  the  Idiom  of  the  New  restament; 
prepared  as  a  Solid  Basis  for  the  Interpretation  of  the  Ne  w  Testament.  By  Dr.  Guorob 
Benedict  Winer.  Seventli  Edition,  enlarged  and  improved.  By  Dr.  Gottlieb 
LuNEMANN,  Professor  of  Theology  at  the  University  of  Gottingen.  Revised  and  author- 
ized Translation.    8vo.    pp.744.    Cloth.  S4.00;  sheep,  $5.00;  half  goat,  $5.76. 

•'  Prof.  Thayer  exhibits  the  most  scholarly  and  paina-taking  accuracy  in  all  his  work,  especial  attentioQ 
•  being  given  to  references  and  Indexes,  on  whicli  the  value  of  such  a  work  so  much  depends.  The  Indexci 
alone  Jill  eighty-six  pages.  The  publisher's  work  is  handsomely  done,  and  we  cannot  conceive  that  a  bettei 
Winer  should  be  for  many  years  to  come  accessible  to  American  scholars." —  Frinceton  Review. 

"  We  trust  that  this  admirable  edition  of  a  justly  famous  and  surpassingly  valuable  work,  will  gain  exten' 
live  circulation,  and  that  the  study  of  it  will  begin  afresh."  —  Baptist  (Juarterly. 

"  The  seventh  edition  of  Winer,  superintended  by  Lunemann  (Leipz.  1867),  we  have  at  last,  thanks  to  Prof. 
Thayer,  in  >  really  accurate  translation."  — i>r.  Jizra  Abbot,  in  Smith's  Dictionary  qf  the  Bible,  American 
hdition. 

"  We  have  before  ne,  in  our  own  language, '  a  reproduction  of  the  original  work,'  in  it«  most  perfect  form, 
and  with  its  author's  latest  additions  and  improvements."  —  New  Enylander. 

"Professor  Thayer  has  introduced  numerous  and  important  corrections  of  Masson's  translation,  and  haa 
made  the  present  edition  of  the  Grammar  decidedly  superior  to  any  of  the  preceding  translations.  Ue  has 
made  it  especially  convenient  for  the  uses  of  an  English  student  by  noting  on  the  outer  margin  of  the  psgei 
the  paging  of  the  sixth  and  seventh  German  editions, and  also  of  Prof.  Mr.sson's  translation.  Thus  the  reader 
of  a  commentary  which  refers  to  the  pages  of  either  of  those  volumes,  may  easily  find  the  reference  by  con- 
■ultingthe  margin  of  this  volume." — liibbotheca  Sacra. 

"The  whole  appearance  of  the  work  as  it  now  stands  indicates  a  careful  and  thorough  scholarship.  A 
critical  comparison  of  several  pages  with  the  original  coutlrms  the  impression  made  by  a  general  examination 
of  the  book.  In  its  present  form,  this  translation  may  now  be  recommended  as  worthy  of  a  place  in  the  library 
of  every  minister  who  desires  to  study  the  New  Testament  with  the  aid  of  the  best  critical  helps."  —  Theolog- 
ical Eclectic. 

"  Great  pains  also  have  been  taken  to  secure  typographical  accuracy,  an  extremely  difficult  thing  in  a  work 
of  this  kind.  We  rejoice  that  so  invaluable  a  work  has  thus  been  made  as  nearly  perfect  as  we  can  hope  ever 
to  have  it.  It  is  a  work  that  can  hardly  fail  to  facilitate  and  increase  the  reverent  and  accurate  study  of  the 
Word  of  God." — American  Presbyterian  Jieview.. 


BUTTMANN'S  N.  T.  GRAMMAR.  A  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament  Greek. 
By  Alexander  Buttmann.  Authorized  Translation,  by  J.  Henry  Thayer.  With 
numerous  additions  and  corrections  by  the  Author.    8vo.    pp.494.    Cloth,  $2.75. 

"  This  Grammar  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  most  important  work  which  has  appeared  on  N.  T.  Grammar 
since  Winer's.  Its  use  has  been  hindered  by  the  fact  that  in  the  original  it  has  the  form  of  an  Appendix  to 
the  Classic  Greek  Grammar  by  the  Author's  father.  The  inconvenience  arising  from  this  peculiarity  has 
been  obviated  in  this  translation  by  introducing  in  every  case  enough  from  that  Grammar  to  render  the  state- 
ments easily  intelligible  to  readers  unacquainted  with  that  work ;  at  the  same  time,  the  Author's  genera) 
scheme  of  constantly  comparing  New  Testament  and  Classic  usage  has  been  facilitated  for  every  Student,  by 
giving  running  references  throughout  the  book  to  five  or  six  of  the  most  current  grammatical  works,  amocf; 
them  the  Grammars  of  Hadley,  Crosby,  Donaldson,  and  Jelf.  Additions  and  corrections  in  more  than  two 
hundred  and  fifty  places  have  been  furnished  for  this  edition  by  the  Author. 

"The  N.  T  Index  has  been  enlarged  so  as  to  include  all  the  passages  from  the  N.  T.  referred  to  in  the 
Grammar  ;  and  a  separate  Index  has  been  added,  comprising  all  the  passages  cited  fiom  the  Septuagint.  T):« 
other  Indexes  have  been  materially  augmented;  the  cross-references  have  been  ir.nUiplied!  chapter a^d 
verse  added  to  many  of  the  fragmentary  quotations  from  the  N.  T.  ;  the  pagination  of  the  German  original 
has  been  given  in  the  margin  :  and  at  the  end  of  the  book  a  glossary  of  technical  terms  encountered  more  or 
less  frequently  in  commentaries  and  grammatical  works  has  been  added  for  the  canvenience  of  students." — 
Tratistalor's  Fr^ace. 

"  Professor  Thayer  has  performed  his  task  —  which  has  been  a  great  deal  more  than  that  of  a  mere  translator 
—  with  remarkable  fidelity.  It  is  doubtkes  the  best  work  extant  on  this  subject,  and  a  book  which  every 
s<  holarly  pastor  will  desire  to  possess.  Its  usableiiess  is  greatly  enhanced  by  its  complete  set  of  Indexes." — 
7/i«  Advance. 

"It  is  a  thoroughly  scientific  treatise,  and  one  which  will  be  helpful  to  students,  both  in  connection  with 
Winer's  and  as  discussing  many  points  from  a  different  or  opposite  point  of  view.  Prof.  Thayer  has  added 
much  to  the  value  of  the  book  —  as  one  to  be  readily  and  conveniently  used  —  by  enlarging  and  perfecting 
the  Indexes,"  etc.  —  A'ew  Englander. 


BTUART'S  N.  T.  GRAMMAR.  A  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament  Dialect.  Bj 
M.  SrCART,  Trofessor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Ando/e> 
8vo.    Boards,  $1.'26. 

2-8VO. 


